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 613
    More: Dumbass, NAMBLA, Dr. Ben Carson, Johns Hopkins, National Prayer Breakfasts, andrea mitchell, gay marriage ban, Presidential Medal of Freedom, gays  
•       •       •

13228 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»



613 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 03:48:04 PM  

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you know what probability means?

I detect a probability of Maximum Trolling.


This guy comes into threads about LGBT rights to do two things:

1 - "Argue" about gay rights using, word-for-word, the same arguments that were made against interracial marriage(I suspect that he words his post so as to elicit that specific rebuttal).

2 - Post comically bad factual misunderstandings about gay people, some of which are basically decades-old urban legends.

It's obvious that he's not arguing in good faith. The only question is whether this is a ploy to make conservatives look bad (well, worse) or whether he's just being an asshole for the sake of it.
 
2013-03-30 03:50:38 PM  
SkinnyHead:

BraveNewCheneyWorld:


It's sad how the issue is two consenting adults that are part of a minority are being denied the same rights and freedoms granted to everyone else in a country founded on equality for all, and you two trolls constantly try to tell us why it's perfectly fine to treat these people as second-class sub-humans by using bullshiat that's been proven as bullshiat in the past week alone, to say nothing of being proven bullshiat for many years now, and straight-up lying and misrepresenting.

Is it seriously that difficult for you to let gays marry each other? Do you honestly think that consenting adults being allowed to marry will lead straight to legal pedophilia and bestiality? Show us on the doll where the gay people touched you. Rational people would not continue the crusade of idiocy that the two of you are hell-bent to ride until your dying breath.
 
2013-03-30 03:56:52 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?


Because you linked to an opinion piece, not a citation.   I am as uninterested in that guys opinion on the matter as I am in yours.   I am interested in scientific study and whatever facts may be relevant to forming an opinion on the matter, but you haven't provided any of that.   What has been provided would indicate that you are pretty much full of shiat.

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.

Under equal protection if you are asserting that gays shouldn't be married because they can't have kids, then you must (unless you are a complete retard) assert the same for hetro people that can't have kids as well.  If "having kids" is the state interest, then that has to be applied equally.

Right?
 
2013-03-30 04:09:31 PM  

spongeboob: part of the problem: spongeboob: This guy is a Seventh day Adventist right, I would have loved to see him being asked does your church really think going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday is the mark of the Beast? But no one would ask him that if he ran as a Republican.

Fair enough but SDAs take seperation of church and state VERY seriously. If we have to have a republican we could do much much worse. Ive even known SDAs to support pro choice candidates soley because the religious right was for them.
a
(Not sda)

SDA is for separation of church and state because they are afraid of the coming National Sunday Law that will force them to go to church on Sundays. They also believe the Pope or the Papacy is the anti-Christ, it is something they wont tell you at first.
They also have some very very weird health beliefs. I don't think they have officially renounced that masturbation causes all kinds of health problems.  Meat leads to cancer. You shouldn't eat fruit and vegetables at the same time because they 'fight' in the stomach. Vinegar is bad for you.
I have heard it preached in SDA churches if your child is a practicing homosexual you should shun them.
They tithe 10%, yeah I know lots of churches do you say, but in the SDA faith that tithe goes only to pay their clergy, every thing else upkeep on their churches, outreach programs is paid for by additional money the faithful have to give.  When you die you should leave everything to the Church because your kids may do something immoral with it.

I could go on.

/baptized as a SDA as an adult even though I told the preacher I had some reservations about the whole Ellen White prophet thing.


I was just trying to be nice to your religion. Sheesh. (Related to some well known SDAs. Licensed lay minister in another church. Everybody came to the babys baptism and made nice.) But yeah all of the above.....
 
2013-03-30 04:13:47 PM  

Biological Ali: This guy comes into threads about LGBT rights to do two things:


This is not the first time I will have pointed out that you have an unhealthy obsession with me.

Biological Ali: 1 - "Argue" about gay rights using, word-for-word, the same arguments that were made against interracial marriage(I suspect that he words his post so as to elicit that specific rebuttal).


Really? My argument about reproduction pretty much proves yet again, you're a liar.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Is it seriously that difficult for you to let gays marry each other? Do you honestly think that consenting adults being allowed to marry will lead straight to legal pedophilia and bestiality? Show us on the doll where the gay people touched you. Rational people would not continue the crusade of idiocy that the two of you are hell-bent to ride until your dying breath.


I think there's a good argument to be made for the idea that an effort to normalize one form of deviancy will tend to normalize others as well.

Rent Party: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Because you linked to an opinion piece, not a citation.   I am as uninterested in that guys opinion on the matter as I am in yours.   I am interested in scientific study and whatever facts may be relevant to forming an opinion on the matter, but you haven't provided any of that.   What has been provided would indicate that you are pretty much full of shiat.


The article referred to a study.  Like I said, try reading the article.

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.

Under equal protection if you are asserting that gays shouldn't be married because they can't have kids, then you must (unless you are a complete retard) assert the same for hetro people that can't have kids as well.  If "having kids" is the state interest, then that has to be applied equally.

Right?


Did you not read the underlined sentence?  I already addressed that "point".
 
2013-03-30 04:19:44 PM  

Sgt Otter: 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.
Limbaugh: Ben Carson Has Democrats Scared To Death


It's hard to find anything funnier than that:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Dr. Benjamin Carson has taken the world by storm. Dr. Benjamin Carson from Johns Hopkins University took CPAC by storm. He was on Hannity last night. Anytime he speaks, he just dominates. Everybody loves Dr. Carson, and the reason they love Dr. Carson is he is able to articulate and explain conservatism in a way that is persuasive without raising his voice at all. He sounds like your dad talking to you -- or not your dad, your best buddy talking to you at the table, or in a bar, or whatever the most-nonthreatening place you can be is.

I think Dr. Benjamin Carson has probably got everybody in the Democrat Party scared to death. It's gonna be really hard to demonize this guy -- really, really hard -- partially because of his race, but not just because he's African-American.

It's because you can call this guy all kinds of demonic names; he just doesn't fit the bill. You can say he's all these horrible things; then you hear him, see him, and listen to him, and it doesn't click. He saves children. He saves children with his hands. He saves their little brains. He saves lit-tle children! He's a ped-i-a-tric neu-ro-sur-geon. He saves the children, and he probably doesn't exude the signs of overt wealth. There's not a character in the TV series The Bible that looks like him.

/So, he's going with "It's hard to demonize him because he's African American," AND he's confirming that the Satan character from the Bible TV series looked like Obama, and thus it's pretty easy to demonize an African-American politician.
//This is what Republicans believe?
 
2013-03-30 04:19:58 PM  

Rent Party: Right?


The guy's trolling you. I mean, you can tell that he doesn't actually believe what he's saying, right?
 
2013-03-30 04:23:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

Again, that is incorrect. That definition has only been around since 1964.


What was the traditional definition of marriage in America before 1964?
 
2013-03-30 04:29:38 PM  

sweet jeez: LETS NOT LISTEN TO HIM HES PROBABLY THE MOST GIFTED BLACK MAN ON THE PLANET RIGHT NOW OOO I FORGOT YOU CANT BE A GIFTED BLACK MAN IF YOU NOT A DEM KIND OF LIKE MLK YOU KNOW HE WAS ON THE RIGHT TO BUT THOSE PISKY MORALS AND THE WHOLE GOD THING ........STUPID ME


Just for fun, I thought I'd post links to King's autobiography--specifically the chapter in which he discusses his decision to stay neutral in the 1960 presidential election and the chapter in which he describes his thoughts on Goldwater's nomination in 1964, as well as his work on behalf of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party at the Democratic National Convention.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pynSnGuC964C&pg=PT136&source=gbs_to c_ r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=pynSnGuC964C&pg=PT228&source=gbs_to c_ r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The "best man" at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

/He also had some mean things to say about Southern Democrats in the Senate at the end of the chapter.
 
2013-03-30 04:30:29 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: My argument about reproduction


A yes, I forgot the third category: Authentic Frontier Gibberish.
 
2013-03-30 04:31:25 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

Again, that is incorrect. That definition has only been around since 1964.

What was the traditional definition of marriage in America before 1964?


Hrm... what happened in 1964... had something to do with civil rights I think...
 
2013-03-30 04:37:50 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld:

The article referred to a study.  Like I said, try reading the article.

No, the article did not refer to a study.  The opinion piece you provided quoted two psychologist's opinions about what might happen.   But there has been an actual study done.  It's even been linked to here.   If you weren't a complete moron, and were actually interested in facts, rather than your bigotry,  you could compare the objective data gathered in that study with the subjective opinions presented by the two psychologists quoted in your opinion piece, and see how they fared.

Did you not read the underlined sentence?  I already addressed that "point".

You haven't addressed it.  You provided a failed analogy.    You either believe in equal protection, or you don't.  If the state interest is "bearing children" then anyone not able to bear children should be barred from marriage.   That would be what "equal protection means."
 
2013-03-30 04:39:17 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

Again, that is incorrect. That definition has only been around since 1964.

What was the traditional definition of marriage in America before 1964?


One white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman. Surely you remember that interracial marriage was not legal right?
 
2013-03-30 04:40:42 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld: Keizer_Ghidorah: Is it seriously that difficult for you to let gays marry each other? Do you honestly think that consenting adults being allowed to marry will lead straight to legal pedophilia and bestiality? Show us on the doll where the gay people touched you. Rational people would not continue the crusade of idiocy that the two of you are hell-bent to ride until your dying breath.

I think there's a good argument to be made for the idea that an effort to normalize one form of deviancy will tend to normalize others as well.


No, there isn't, really. The fact you keep trying to compare two consenting adult humans able to enter into contracts with children unable to fully understand consent or able to enter contracts and with animals who are not human and have no concept of contracts or consent shows how dishonest and retarded you are. And you do it every single time, like the steady beat of a drum. And every time you're completely and consistently shown how false your "evidence" is and how flawed your way of thinking is, and you simply keep repeating it.

There is no legal or moral reason to deny gays the same rights and freedoms others have. Religious and personal reasons are not valid, and neither are dipshiat slippery slope fallacies.
 
2013-03-30 04:47:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: or one black man and one black woman.


Not even that.  Traditional marriage for Blacks in the United States was: you have no right to marry, you are property of your master.  If your master approved, you might be allowed to get 'married', but that marriage did not have to be respected by any White in any way.  Your "wife" could be bred out to any man your master desired to breed with her.

This ban on interracial marriage was completely supported by biblical teachings and "common-sense" which stated that God separated the races on the Earth for a reason, to keep them separate, and the White blood lines "pure." The state's interest in keeping White blood "pure" was the stated interest for anti-miscegenation laws. Surely, if the right to ban interracial marriage was not justified for such a high reason as keeping the White blood line pure, a desire of the state to "preserve traditional marriage" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, is not enough of a justification to allow the state to ban same-sex marriages.
 
2013-03-30 04:49:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

Again, that is incorrect. That definition has only been around since 1964.

What was the traditional definition of marriage in America before 1964?

One white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman. Surely you remember that interracial marriage was not legal right?


Certain states enacted law prohibiting interracial marriage, but those were not definitional.  They did not prohibit interracial marriage to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.  Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics.  That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.
 
2013-03-30 04:50:28 PM  

Biological Ali: 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.


More to the point: yes, people will do terrible things with or without religion, but without religion, we could at least call them on it.

Religion is the last weapon available to people who can't fight with logic.  As a society, we need to put that weapon down before we destroy ourselves with it.
 
2013-03-30 04:52:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

Again, that is incorrect. That definition has only been around since 19647.

What was the traditional definition of marriage in America before 19647?

One white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman. Surely you remember that interracial marriage was not legal right?



FTFY


The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation  as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile stated:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
 
2013-03-30 04:56:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics. That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.


True, those people have a lot to answer for.  It was a sad time to be alive if you weren't a white male, or married to one.

But look what eventually happened: those people didn't get their way in the end.  They lost.  There were <i>logical</i> reasons why they were wrong, including but not limited to their misunderstanding of what you're calling "Darwinism."  We didn't need to wave a Bible at those particular bigots to make them back down.

Similarly, Biblical morality will not help us resolve our current cultural dilemmas.  It only muddies the water.
 
2013-03-30 04:59:55 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

Again, that is incorrect. That definition has only been around since 1964.

What was the traditional definition of marriage in America before 1964?

One white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman. Surely you remember that interracial marriage was not legal right?

Certain states enacted law prohibiting interracial marriage, but those were not definitional.  They did not prohibit interracial marriage to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.  Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics.  That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.


So what you're saying is that there is no real traditional definition of marriage and that it changes over time?
 
2013-03-30 05:05:31 PM  
Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692.

In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the stories of Phinehas and of the "Curse of Ham". In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage.

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina and Alabama legalized interracial marriage for some years during the Reconstruction period. Anti-miscegenation laws rested unenforced, were overturned by courts or repealed by the state government (in Arkansas[16] and Louisiana[17]). However, after conservative white Democrats took power in the South during Redemption, anti-miscegenation laws were once more enforced....

Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws.[19] Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never enacted them.

All from wiki.
 
2013-03-30 05:06:04 PM  
So what we are to take away from this is that Dr. Ben Carlson has made statements that show him to have extensive knowledge of Pedophelia, and that Johns Hopins Supports the molestation of children while under anesthesia.
 
2013-03-30 05:12:27 PM  
"The evil tendency of the crime [of adultery or fornication] is greater when committed between persons of the two races ... Its result may be the amalgamation of the two races, producing a mongrel population and a degraded civilization, the prevention of which is dictated by a sound policy affecting the highest interests of society and government." (Pace & Cox v. State, 69 Ala 231, 233 (1882)
 
2013-03-30 05:16:58 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: True, those people have a lot to answer for. It was a sad time to be alive if you weren't a white male, or married to one.


It's already been posted, but the laws in question (certainly the one in Virginia) were defended on the basis of religion, not "Darwinism".
 
Ehh
2013-03-30 05:19:36 PM  

LucklessWonder: Colon Powell/Condoleeza Rice '16

/Can't be worse than the last joers


They've all but publicly renounced the GOP. Funny that, huh?
 
2013-03-30 05:43:06 PM  

RyogaM: Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692.

In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the stories of Phinehas and of the "Curse of Ham". In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage.

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina and Alabama legalized interracial marriage for some years during the Reconstruction period. Anti-miscegenation laws rested unenforced, were overturned by courts or repealed by the state government (in Arkansas[16] and Louisiana[17]). However, after conservative white Democrats took power in the South during Redemption, anti-miscegenation laws were once more enforced....

Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws.[19] Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never enacted them.

All from wiki.


In fairness, I don't think that anything that the Skinny One posts is actually meant to taken as factual or seriously...
 
2013-03-30 05:45:35 PM  

Biological Ali: It's already been posted, but the laws in question (certainly the one in Virginia) were defended on the basis of religion, not "Darwinism".


He's right, though, in that there was a scientific subculture that also advocated eugenics and anti-miscegenation laws.  They saw a part of the picture and thought they were looking at the whole thing.

There was plenty of stupidity to go around, put it that way.
 
2013-03-30 05:50:18 PM  

HighOnCraic: The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile stated:


The trial judge did not write the law.  Go back to wiki and follow the link for the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.  The law was passed as part of the eugenics movement.

Man On Pink Corner: SkinnyHead: Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics. That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.

True, those people have a lot to answer for.  It was a sad time to be alive if you weren't a white male, or married to one.

But look what eventually happened: those people didn't get their way in the end.  They lost.  There were <i>logical</i> reasons why they were wrong, including but not limited to their misunderstanding of what you're calling "Darwinism."  We didn't need to wave a Bible at those particular bigots to make them back down.

Similarly, Biblical morality will not help us resolve our current cultural dilemmas.  It only muddies the water.


But Progressives in the eugenics movement in their day insisted that they had science on their side and that they were on the right side of history.  People who did not agree with them were considered anti-science and on the wrong side of history.

cameroncrazy1984: So what you're saying is that there is no real traditional definition of marriage and that it changes over time?


No, I am saying that laws against interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage.  The definition of marriage -- the union of one man and one woman -- has remained constant.  State laws that restrict who can marry (i.e., no marriage under a certain age, no marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, no marriage by someone who is already married, no marriage between certain races) do not define marriage.
 
2013-03-30 05:52:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: No, I am saying that laws against interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage.  The definition of marriage -- the union of one man and one woman -- has remained constant.


No, it hasn't. As I have shown you.
 
2013-03-30 05:53:37 PM  

SkinnyHead: State laws that restrict who can marry (i.e., no marriage under a certain age, no marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, no marriage by someone who is already married, no marriage between certain races) do not define marriage.


This is hilarious. State laws that define the boundaries of marriage do not define the boundaries of marriage.

BRILLIANT TROLL
 
2013-03-30 05:55:20 PM  
Hey guys the lines that are the boundaries of this box do not define this box.
 
2013-03-30 05:56:28 PM  
The lines of this box have changed over time, but that doesn't mean the box has changed!
 
2013-03-30 06:13:39 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: State laws that restrict who can marry (i.e., no marriage under a certain age, no marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, no marriage by someone who is already married, no marriage between certain races) do not define marriage.

This is hilarious. State laws that define the boundaries of marriage do not define the boundaries of marriage.

BRILLIANT TROLL


State laws that say that minors cannot drink alcohol do not change the definition of drinking alcohol. State laws that say that felons cannot possess firearms do not change the definition of possessing firearms.
 
2013-03-30 06:14:25 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: State laws that restrict who can marry (i.e., no marriage under a certain age, no marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, no marriage by someone who is already married, no marriage between certain races) do not define marriage.

This is hilarious. State laws that define the boundaries of marriage do not define the boundaries of marriage.

BRILLIANT TROLL

State laws that say that minors cannot drink alcohol do not change the definition of drinking alcohol. State laws that say that felons cannot possess firearms do not change the definition of possessing firearms.


Yes they do. They change the definition of the legality of those actions, just as defining what marriage is defines what marriage is.
 
2013-03-30 06:20:30 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: He's right, though, in that there was a scientific subculture that also advocated eugenics and anti-miscegenation laws. They saw a part of the picture and thought they were looking at the whole thing.


You've got it backwards. They were people scrambling for (rather poor) secular excuses for what was very much a religious exercise, much like people today who justify discrimination against gay people on the basis of fraudulent "research" linking them to pedophilia and what have you.
 
2013-03-30 06:24:47 PM  
And actually,  SkinnyHead, you shouldn't mind the redefinition of marriage as being any two consenting non-related persons as, in your mind, laws regarding marriage don't or can't redefine marriage itself.

Right?
 
2013-03-30 06:31:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: State laws that say that minors cannot drink alcohol do not change the definition of drinking alcohol. State laws that say that felons cannot possess firearms do not change the definition of possessing firearms.

Yes they do. They change the definition of the legality of those actions, just as defining what marriage is defines what marriage is.


Think about what you're saying.  If "drinking alcohol" is defined as "someone over 21 drinking alcohol," then the minor charged with drinking alcohol could defend by saying that he wasn't drinking alcohol, as defined by law, because he was under 21.

If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.
 
2013-03-30 06:37:37 PM  

robmilmel: fusillade762: You be sure to let us know when this "precedent" happens somewhere other than a 3rd world backwater.

I just had to post this, from the Salt Lake Trib:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56073795-90/marriage-duck-lake -s alt.html.csp


Radio DJ publicity stunt is stunty. But this made me chuckle:

The response was that the story was worth no more than four paragraphs. But if the marriage was consummated, I was to get pictures.
 
2013-03-30 06:37:55 PM  

SkinnyHead: If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.


That makes zero sense. Marriage is a legal construct. If your marriage falls outside of the legal construct then it is not defined as a marriage. If you change the marriage law, the construct is changed. The definition is changed.

I don't know how you're not getting this.
 
2013-03-30 06:38:54 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: State laws that say that minors cannot drink alcohol do not change the definition of drinking alcohol. State laws that say that felons cannot possess firearms do not change the definition of possessing firearms.

Yes they do. They change the definition of the legality of those actions, just as defining what marriage is defines what marriage is.

Think about what you're saying.  If "drinking alcohol" is defined as "someone over 21 drinking alcohol," then the minor charged with drinking alcohol could defend by saying that he wasn't drinking alcohol, as defined by law, because he was under 21.

If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.


"Defining what something is doesn't define what some thing is, unless it's something I'm talking about."

Dude, give it a rest already. There has NEVER been a "traditional idea of marriage" that's stayed constant since the dawn of time. And what about non-Christian concepts of "traditional" marriage? Atheist concepts of "traditional" marriage? They all existed before Christianity was invented, exist alongside it, and have all changed as well. Stop trying to argue that "one man + one woman+ has always been the way the entire world has thought for the last 400,000 years and because of that it's fine to treat gays as sub-human second-hand citizens.
 
2013-03-30 06:39:26 PM  
I.E. if the state redefines marriage as between two consenting non-related adults, marriage has changed, because the definition of marriage has changed. As it has several times in the past.
 
2013-03-30 06:55:52 PM  

SkinnyHead: HighOnCraic: The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile stated:

The trial judge did not write the law.  Go back to wiki and follow the link for the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.  The law was passed as part of the eugenics movement.

Man On Pink Corner: SkinnyHead: Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics. That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.

True, those people have a lot to answer for.  It was a sad time to be alive if you weren't a white male, or married to one.

But look what eventually happened: those people didn't get their way in the end.  They lost.  There were <i>logical</i> reasons why they were wrong, including but not limited to their misunderstanding of what you're calling "Darwinism."  We didn't need to wave a Bible at those particular bigots to make them back down.

Similarly, Biblical morality will not help us resolve our current cultural dilemmas.  It only muddies the water.

But Progressives in the eugenics movement in their day insisted that they had science on their side and that they were on the right side of history.  People who did not agree with them were considered anti-science and on the wrong side of history.

cameroncrazy1984: So what you're saying is that there is no real traditional definition of marriage and that it changes over time?

No, I am saying that laws against interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage.  The definition of marriage -- the union of one man and one woman -- has remained constant.  State laws that restrict who can marry (i.e., no marriage under a certain age, no marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, no marriage by someone who is already married, no marriage between certain races) do not define marriage.


The idea that separating the races was a biblical principle goes back (at least) to the 19th Century.  Google "The Cornerstone Speech," given by Confederate vice president Alexander Stephens.

Of course, the abolitionists ALSO thought that God was on their side, so it's hard to blame it all on religion.

/See also, various factions of the Dutch Reformed Church and apartheid.
 
2013-03-30 06:58:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.

That makes zero sense. Marriage is a legal construct. If your marriage falls outside of the legal construct then it is not defined as a marriage. If you change the marriage law, the construct is changed. The definition is changed.

I don't know how you're not getting this.


I'm pretty sure he's purposefully not getting it.  Not sure what he gets out of it, but here we are.
 
2013-03-30 07:08:17 PM  
Wow, Skinny just keeps on Hindenburging himself, doesn't he.

This IS what I say it is, even though it doesn't SAY what I say it is!!

Once the LAW is the LAW, nothing ever changes even though the laws have chaaaaaanged!


Keep on turniping that derp, if you just wish hard enough it'll potato.
 
2013-03-30 07:22:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.

That makes zero sense. Marriage is a legal construct. If your marriage falls outside of the legal construct then it is not defined as a marriage. If you change the marriage law, the construct is changed. The definition is changed.

I don't know how you're not getting this.


It makes perfect sense.  The Virginia law made it a crime for a white person to intermarry with a black person.  As with every criminal law, you have to ask, what is the definition of the prohibited act (i.e, to marry)?  If the legal definition of "to marry" was to unite in matrimony with someone of the same race (as you claim), then they could not have been convicted because they did not do what the law prohibits.  They were convicted because what the did was defined as marriage. That means that race was not part of the actual definition of marriage.
 
2013-03-30 07:23:53 PM  

SkinnyHead: But Progressives in the eugenics movement in their day insisted that they had science on their side and that they were on the right side of history.


The thing they overlooked is that science, unlike God, isn't on anyone's "side."

It's God's job to approach me if he wants my attention or my praise.  But it's my responsibility to pursue science, if I want to use its tools to improve my understanding of reality.

Put another way, God might come to me in the form of a hallucination in the desert, but Truth is a mirage on the horizon that I can approach but never reach.  It's no wonder that so many people take the easy way out with the God thing.  We're lazy creatures.
 
2013-03-30 07:33:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: If the legal definition of "to marry" was to unite in matrimony with someone of the same race (as you claim), then they could not have been convicted because they did not do what the law prohibits.  They were convicted because what the did was defined as marriage. That means that race was not part of the actual definition of marriage.


You seem to think that marriage, which exists as a legal entity, does not exist as a legal entity.
 
2013-03-30 07:39:26 PM  

fusillade762: The response was that the story was worth no more than four paragraphs. But if the marriage was consummated, I was to get pictures.


I'm still waiting!

/had just read that a couple of days ago...not real, obviously (the marriage), but a chuckle
 
2013-03-30 07:39:51 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.

That makes zero sense. Marriage is a legal construct. If your marriage falls outside of the legal construct then it is not defined as a marriage. If you change the marriage law, the construct is changed. The definition is changed.

I don't know how you're not getting this.

It makes perfect sense.  The Virginia law made it a crime for a white person to intermarry with a black person.  As with every criminal law, you have to ask, what is the definition of the prohibited act (i.e, to marry)?  If the legal definition of "to marry" was to unite in matrimony with someone of the same race (as you claim), then they could not have been convicted because they did not do what the law prohibits.  They were convicted because what the did was defined as marriage. That means that race was not part of the actual definition of marriage.


"It's against the law to marry someone not of your race, therefore race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage."

At this point you've gone over into parody. There's no way you can actually be this stupid.
 
2013-03-30 07:44:25 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: "It's against the law to marry someone not of your race, therefore race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage."

At this point you've gone over into parody. There's no way you can actually be this stupid


I doubt he is, he's probably trolling, but it's fun to back him into corners like this.
 
Displayed 50 of 613 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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report