[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’ve seen how “white collar” types fare in prison. They usually end up wearing lipstick and crying themselves to sleep every night.[/quote]
Dude quit hating on the LGBT community. “Consent” is fluid and abstract like gender. Sometimes people need to be taken outside their comfort zone to explore their gender identities. Don’t judge dude.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
I being a minority can’t stand when people compare the civil rights movement and the years of torture/killings slaves endured to the current “struggle” of gays. Sex Machine you make some very thought provoking, valid points IMO.[/quote]
Why? Are you saying that gays haven’t been tortured or killed for the simple fact of being gay?
Does me, being white, make me somehow “insensitive” to the plight of minorities and that I should hold my tongue when using AN HISTORICAL EXAMPLE of disenfranchisement?
This is PWI… If you can’t take the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen. You, being a “minority”, certainly don’t hold the monopoly on slavery - it’s existed for about as long as human history and ALL races have been enslaved at one time or another. My guess is that YOU were never a slave, so I’m not sure how I’ve offended YOU. Unless you are buying into that progressive, politically correct, “our feelings should be protected under the Constitution” bullshit. If that’s the case, I’m sorry, I don’t really have an interest in arguing with idiots. If it’s not the case, carry on with your argument.[/quote]
This is really stupid. I expect better from you. It’s one thing to be in favour of gay marriage; quite another to equate gay rights to slavery/segregation.
[/quote]
First of all I NEVER equated the two. YOU wrote this:
“How have they disenfranchised them when they never had any such “right” to begin with?”
And I responded with this:
Blacks never had the right to be considered people until the Government decided that, “wait a minute, they ARE people!”. I’d say they were pretty fucking disenfranchised…"
I brought it up to use it as an example of disenfranchisement when a right never existed in the first place. No where in my post did I EQUATE the civil rights struggle with gay rights. I stated that in my reply to him.
But then FN does a liberal passive aggressive drive by comment and pulled the race card. So I gave him a piece of my mind about my thoughts on that tactic. For the record I DID NOT and I DO NOT equate gay rights to civil rights. I DID challenge the fact that he put the gay rights “struggle” in quotes while he mentioned blacks being tortured and killed because homosexuals certainly HAVE been tortured and killed and just because he is a “minority” doesn’t mean he gets to dismiss outright the struggles of and legitimate crimes committed against other groups of disenfranchised people.[/quote]
Haha. Thanks, I guess. Look, I am stubborn in my beliefs. They do not waver with public opinion. My point, although maybe a tad crass, was to raise what can society consider “right” and “wrong” with marriage legally? Where is the line and who defines it?
A breakdown of morals is why we are lamenting about the problems of today.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’ve seen how “white collar” types fare in prison. They usually end up wearing lipstick and crying themselves to sleep every night.[/quote]
Dude quit hating on the LGBT community. “Consent” is fluid and abstract like gender. Sometimes people need to be taken outside their comfort zone to explore their gender identities. Don’t judge dude.[/quote]
LOL
I agree, when the rapists approach with the line, “blood on my knife or shit on my dick”, consent is OBVIOUSLY implied because they are clearly offering a choice!
Like I said, some people end up wearing lipstick and being traded like livestock. Personally, I always tried to see if they were quick enough to get my blood on their knife before I put their blood on mine. I ended up getting cut a few times, but no one ever got my shit on their dick.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let me ask you this Beans, should Lois Lerner be investigated/brought before Congress for what went down at the IRS? [/quote]
Yes, because:
The difference is, who do you arrest for signing the mortgages and defaulting? Who do you arrest for decades of government programs that slammed home ownership down people’s throats? Who do you arrest for monetary policy that lead to insanely cheap money? Who do you arrest for buying the subordinated debt for all those years creating the market?
Who do you arrest at Fannie & Freddie?
Who do you arrest at AIG?
Who do you arrest at Dept Treasury? And how many administrations do you go back?
Who do you arrest at the Fed? And how far back?
Who do you arrest from LBJ’s & FDR’s cabinet? What about Reagan’s and Clinton’s?
When Obama’s Treasury Secretary worked with Larry Summers to exasperate the situation under Clinton, who do you arrest once they work for Obama?
Does Paulson get some time?
What about members of Congress that pushed for TARP? (Both sides btw.)
Madoff was a clear and excellent example of what happens when it is a firm doing something wrong. Once you run into a systemic problem, that spans damn near a century… Kind of have to settle for billions of dollars in fines.
My point isn’t that they shouldn’t be punished, or the issue should be ignored. I hated TARP as much as the next guy, and hate cronyism. My point is you can’t realistically narrow the situation down. [/quote]
I don’t see why you can’t narrow it down (probably not now) and investigate on a firm by firm basis. Come up with some kind of risk model and determine, which firms/companies to look at and in what order. It would of been expensive and time consuming, but imo it would of been worth it. At this point, it is what it is, but at the very least it could of helped in civil cases or even potential class action lawsuits.
We waste money on all kinds of BS (like steroids in baseball). I would rather see it used for a real purpose.
Lois Lerner is clearly involved, but Maurice Greenberg wasn’t. These are the type of discrepancies in how the law is applied that I’m referring to.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
The fallacy of your argument is that nobody is advocating for intra-family marriage.
[/quote]
No, you’re using an appeal to tradition just as much as anyone.
You’re dodging his question, and rightfully so, because you can’t answer it. Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument, but legally, you can use the same justification to allow or deny both types of government recognized marriage. You just, because you’re rational, understand that we shouldn’t allow parent/child marriages.
In fact, the tax savings I could get people if they were allowed to marry their children are mind boggling. But no, we shouldn’t recognize those marriages. Why? Because it’s wrong. [/quote]
I don’t see the slippery slope, because people are not clamoring for the boundary lines of marriage to be removed, nor is moving that line likely to lead to its removal.
The line is already drawn. We have a definition of marriage. We’re moving the line to include homosexual couples, but not family members. There’s the line right there. Nobody is advocating for no lines at all.
Being able to extrapolate the reasoning we are using to justify gay marriages and then run with it to all manner of ridiculous conclusions doesn’t really prove much at all.
Society is moving towards acceptance of gays, up to and including marriage. There used to be laws outlawing the actual act of gay sex. Incest did not suddenly become acceptable when those laws were changed.
Society is not moving toward acceptance of incest or marrying one’s dog or a piece of fruit. It is therefore not worth discussing, even if the flimsy thread of “both are not heterosexual marriage arrangements” holds them together. Because that is the only connection homosexuality and incest have. They are not connected by what they are, but by what they are not. A flimsy thread indeed.
Even if the worst-case scenario floating around in NorCal and SM’s head comes to pass, and our legislators and judiciary concluded that we have to allow man/dog marriages if we allow man/man marriages, what impact would that have on society, other than providing a lot of late-night joke material?
At any rate, I’m bowing out of this discussion. Someone else said it, but the ship has sailed. It is little more than a wedge issue that the right should just drop and move on, much like gun control on the left. Bigger fish to fry.[/quote]
What about NAMBLA? It’s fair to say they are an advocacy group. Why do we establish the age of consent? Morals. Why is it not a year earlier? No medical reason. Again, morals.
See what happens when we erase the moral component from our legal system? The NAMBLA question is a legitimate point in a larger argument.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
The fallacy of your argument is that nobody is advocating for intra-family marriage.
[/quote]
No, you’re using an appeal to tradition just as much as anyone.
You’re dodging his question, and rightfully so, because you can’t answer it. Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument, but legally, you can use the same justification to allow or deny both types of government recognized marriage. You just, because you’re rational, understand that we shouldn’t allow parent/child marriages.
In fact, the tax savings I could get people if they were allowed to marry their children are mind boggling. But no, we shouldn’t recognize those marriages. Why? Because it’s wrong. [/quote]
I don’t see the slippery slope, because people are not clamoring for the boundary lines of marriage to be removed, nor is moving that line likely to lead to its removal.
The line is already drawn. We have a definition of marriage. We’re moving the line to include homosexual couples, but not family members. There’s the line right there. Nobody is advocating for no lines at all.
Being able to extrapolate the reasoning we are using to justify gay marriages and then run with it to all manner of ridiculous conclusions doesn’t really prove much at all.
Society is moving towards acceptance of gays, up to and including marriage. There used to be laws outlawing the actual act of gay sex. Incest did not suddenly become acceptable when those laws were changed.
Society is not moving toward acceptance of incest or marrying one’s dog or a piece of fruit. It is therefore not worth discussing, even if the flimsy thread of “both are not heterosexual marriage arrangements” holds them together. Because that is the only connection homosexuality and incest have. They are not connected by what they are, but by what they are not. A flimsy thread indeed.
Even if the worst-case scenario floating around in NorCal and SM’s head comes to pass, and our legislators and judiciary concluded that we have to allow man/dog marriages if we allow man/man marriages, what impact would that have on society, other than providing a lot of late-night joke material?
At any rate, I’m bowing out of this discussion. Someone else said it, but the ship has sailed. It is little more than a wedge issue that the right should just drop and move on, much like gun control on the left. Bigger fish to fry.[/quote]
What about NAMBLA? It’s fair to say they are an advocacy group. Why do we establish the age of consent? Morals. Why is it not a year earlier? No medical reason. Again, morals.
[/quote]
I think it’s pretty clear that age of consent laws disproportionately affect the LGBTQI£*% community which goes to show they are merely in place to support the cisgender patriarchal system of dominance and oppression. How can you set an arbitrary number for age of consent when age and consent are clearly fluid and abstract like gender and borders?
Eunuch welcomed back into military with permission to use women’s toilets:
Colleagues are required to humour his mental illness and address him as “ma’am”.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Who do you arrest at Fannie & Freddie?
Who do you arrest at AIG?
Who do you arrest at Dept Treasury? And how many administrations do you go back?
Who do you arrest at the Fed? And how far back?
Who do you arrest from LBJ’s & FDR’s cabinet? What about Reagan’s and Clinton’s?
When Obama’s Treasury Secretary worked with Larry Summers to exasperate the situation under Clinton, who do you arrest once they work for Obama?
Does Paulson get some time?
What about members of Congress that pushed for TARP? (Both sides btw.)
[/quote]
I don’t see why you can’t narrow it down (probably not now) and investigate on a firm by firm basis.
[/quote]
Give me federal grand jury subpoena power, a 100 or so paralegals, a blank check, and let’s rock.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Who do you arrest at Fannie & Freddie?
Who do you arrest at AIG?
Who do you arrest at Dept Treasury? And how many administrations do you go back?
Who do you arrest at the Fed? And how far back?
Who do you arrest from LBJ’s & FDR’s cabinet? What about Reagan’s and Clinton’s?
When Obama’s Treasury Secretary worked with Larry Summers to exasperate the situation under Clinton, who do you arrest once they work for Obama?
Does Paulson get some time?
What about members of Congress that pushed for TARP? (Both sides btw.)
[/quote]
I don’t see why you can’t narrow it down (probably not now) and investigate on a firm by firm basis.
[/quote]
Give me federal grand jury subpoena power, a 100 or so paralegals, a blank check, and let’s rock.
[/quote]
You ever see that movie with Jamie Fox and the dude from 300? When 300 dude blew up all the lawyer’s cars?
Yeah, that would happen to you, except they wouldn’t blame it on a criminal, but rather a random act of nature that just strangely happen. Sort of like Brietbart and that other journalist who was about to expose a bunch of government corruption.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You ever see that movie with Jamie Fox and the dude from 300? When 300 dude blew up all the lawyer’s cars?
Yeah, that would happen to you, except they wouldn’t blame it on a criminal, but rather a random act of nature that just strangely happen. Sort of like Brietbart and that other journalist who was about to expose a bunch of government corruption.
;)[/quote]
Great movie with a terrible ending.
Plus I love how Fox becomes super cop even though he isn’t one.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Eunuch welcomed back into military with permission to use women’s toilets:
Colleagues are required to humour his mental illness and address him as “ma’am”.[/quote]
One of my vendors has an employee who had a sex change… male to female. I believe his/her medical benefits paid for the final surgery. All of the other employees had to go through sensitivity training classes (on company time…).
In the end… “she” looks pretty passable. Breast augmentation, voice training, the works. The kicker is that she likes women… apparently this is one aspect of the transgender culture.
^^ hahaha! WTF man, all that work to become a lesbian? That’s some shit right there… And you have to be subjected to “sensitivity training” to boot. Damn, and insurance picked up the tab. That’s like a $80k procedure or something. And in most cases you end up looking like Anjelica Houston.
I’ll be damned.
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Eunuch welcomed back into military with permission to use women’s toilets:
Colleagues are required to humour his mental illness and address him as “ma’am”.[/quote]
One of my vendors has an employee who had a sex change… male to female. I believe his/her medical benefits paid for the final surgery. All of the other employees had to go through sensitivity training classes (on company time…).
In the end… “she” looks pretty passable. Breast augmentation, voice training, the works. The kicker is that she likes women… apparently this is one aspect of the transgender culture. [/quote]
Yep, gender studies can be confusing. I mean, how do I know that I’m not a butch lesbian who was coercively assigned male at birth?(CAMAB) How would one even know? You could be trapped in the wrong body and yet be unaware of it and perfectly happy in the wrong body.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Eunuch welcomed back into military with permission to use women’s toilets:
Colleagues are required to humour his mental illness and address him as “ma’am”.[/quote]
One of my vendors has an employee who had a sex change… male to female. I believe his/her medical benefits paid for the final surgery. All of the other employees had to go through sensitivity training classes (on company time…).
In the end… “she” looks pretty passable. Breast augmentation, voice training, the works. The kicker is that she likes women… apparently this is one aspect of the transgender culture. [/quote]
Yep, gender studies can be confusing. I mean, how do I know that I’m not a butch lesbian who was coercively assigned male at birth?(CAMAB) How would one even know? You could be trapped in the wrong body and yet be unaware of it and perfectly happy in the wrong body.[/quote]
I’m sure you are totally correct. But this one couldn’t handle the wrong body and bailed out. I knew the “pre” and “post” version of the person. And for me, it took some getting used to just to talk to this person.
One other guy I’ve known for years, he was married to another friend’s sister, a real biker chick… really rough around the edges, lots of crappy tattoos. Well, he dumps her (I would have also regardless) and moved in with a pre-op transgendered person. Must be something in the water?
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I’m sure you are totally correct. But this one couldn’t handle the wrong body and bailed out.
[/quote]
I was being sarcastic. Sarcasm doesn’t translate well in text.
I don’t believe that “gender” exists. There is “sex” - male or female. Now the fact that a guy wants to be a girl doesn’t mean that he is a girl. The explanation for this phenomena is twofold:
And
To think of it another way: “drug user” is not an identity. Someone may desire drugs intensely. There may be a biological basis for their desire and a physical/chemical basis to their desire but that does not mean that “drug user” is an identity or that drug users must be accorded special rights and privileges.
It’s actually extremely harmful and unethical for medical professionals and the broader society to accept any kind of sexual behaviours or desires as some kind of innate identity.
[quote]
I knew the “pre” and “post” version of the person. And for me, it took some getting used to just to talk to this person.
One other guy I’ve known for years, he was married to another friend’s sister, a real biker chick… really rough around the edges, lots of crappy tattoos. Well, he dumps her (I would have also regardless) and moved in with a pre-op transgendered person. Must be something in the water?[/quote]
When civilisations collapse, culture collapses. This stuff is essentially psychosexual nihilism. Freud himself was a deeply troubled individual and his bizarre theories on human sexuality are actually projections. His theories on sexuality were reflections of his unconscious mind.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
I being a minority can’t stand when people compare the civil rights movement and the years of torture/killings slaves endured to the current “struggle” of gays. Sex Machine you make some very thought provoking, valid points IMO.[/quote]
That’s a dumb comparison and opponents of gay marriage always bring up this strawman in an attempt to discredit or downplay the struggles gays have faced. The proper comparison would be to compare how blacks were treated during the civil rights movement to how gays were treated during the same time period, you’ll see that the way they were treated was pretty similar. There were far fewer gays and it wasn’t publicized as much but they faced really brutal police harassment in the mid 20th century just like blacks did. There was a time period were gays in many states were actually lobotomized and permanently detained in mental hospitals. Most people don’t really know much about the topic because it’s not taught in schools.
Unanswered questions:
Should a societies sexual conduct and marriage be defined by the prevailing morality of the society?
If NO, then the Age of Consent should be abolished, correct?
And please don’t default to mental state. Since someone can be convicted of stat rape based on being a few days short of their birthday. So this is arbitrary.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Unanswered questions:
[/quote]
Prevailing as in “held by most”? OK.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Unanswered questions:
[/quote]
Prevailing as in “held by most”? OK.
Not held by most in Southern states. Not held by most Republicans - not by a longshot. But they’ve been overruled by the federal courts haven’t they? Doesn’t matter what they want in their own state.