![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Robots Getting Married In Japan
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Dirty Butler
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 293
Isn't shoving something where the sun doesn't shine what you're so apparently against?
Exactly, I believe some lady in the netherlands or somewhere married a porpoise. That's what marriage is now, "whatever the hell you want to marry"...
I found the article, lady marries a dolphin. This is what is next for the U.S.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html
It is? OK, explain to the class why a man and a man can get married, but a man and two consenting women cannot. Why can a woman and a woman get married, but a man and a woman that are first cousins cannot? If offspring health is a concern, why can a genetically crippled couple marry and have children? At some point, you're likely weighing in with personal moral beliefs and considerations of child rearing and how the family units will affect society as a whole if widespread.
No, I don't have to weigh in, because if we are going down the slippery slope, then it doesn't start at gay marriage, it starts at straight marriage, and if that's what you want you may as well make hetero marriage illegal as well because that's what started the whole shebang in the first place.
So please stop with the bullshit whine about the definition of a word. Marriage is a social contract that conveys dozens of rights to this who participate in it, and to deny it to homosexuals is a violation of the 14th amendment, which is why you can't deny it to them anymore.
So suck it up, your side lost, and they should have lost, because you're wrong. And you always have been.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry another man, and shut the fuck up about what other people do.
So please stop with the bullshit whine about the definition of a word. Marriage is a social contract that conveys dozens of rights to this who participate in it, and to deny it to homosexuals is a violation of the 14th amendment, which is why you can't deny it to them anymore.
So suck it up, your side lost, and they should have lost, because you're wrong. And you always have been.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry another man, and shut the fuck up about what other people do.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,201
Same sex robots should have the same rights as humans.
I just though that since they felt so strongly about it, they should give it a try
Good idea. The states that disagree with this should just stop issuing marriage certificates. That way the gays can't complain they are being discriminated against. As for everyone else, sorry, buy the guys in the black robes have spoken.
No. To most people it's always meant between one man and one woman. Every society that has strayed from traditional marriage has ended badly.
QUOTE=maverikv;1041700370]
So suck it up, your side lost, and they should have lost, because you're wrong. And you always have been.[/QUOTE]
Wrong again. And it's not over, because the left hasn't finished.
Their next step is to go after anyone who doesn't fully support their redefinition of marriage. They are already putting plans together (as per the New York Times) to go after after churches, private schools and charities. Sue them out of business or shut them down by revoking their tax exempt status. It was never about equal rights, it was about destroying their political opposition.
I wonder what would happen if several states just decided to ignore the court ruling. Just tell the federal government they have no jurisdiction, since it's a state issue. We already have several states ignoring the federal drug laws, and the fed hasn't done much about it. Maybe only liberal states are allowed to ignore federal law.
50Cal
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 218
So many people arguing why this should be a state issue and a state issue only. Have you forgotten that this issue at its core has more to do about all americans being treated equally then ones religion?. To say that marriage is a state issue and that the state gets to decide how its handled is to say slavery and segregation should be state issues only. Meaning states should get to dictate whether or not that should impose segregation or bring back slavery.
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBK2qGr9Eo
PS. you want to know of another group that has been trying to turn their religious beliefs into the laws that dictate the life of everyone? ISIS
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBK2qGr9Eo
PS. you want to know of another group that has been trying to turn their religious beliefs into the laws that dictate the life of everyone? ISIS
If all Americans are equal, then why isn't it legal for polygamists to marry? Why isn't it legal to marry a 14 year old? Aren't they all Americans? AHA! But you have personal opinions about why you think some forms of marriage are immoral, and you probably believe that for a society to function well that its important that the population abide by a basic moral code.
See, without any shadow of a doubt, you are surely positive that Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis Presley getting it on with 14 year old girls are pedophiles, or that polygamists are brainwashed and disgusting, and that's morally reprehensible whether or not those girls "think" they loved them. But to other people, without any shadow of a doubt, they are positive that two dudes getting it on and transvestites and cross-dressers are morally reprehensible with a mental illness and need help whether or not they "think" they love each other. Its personal belief systems, and when it comes to morality, or a code-of-conduct whats right or wrong is just what society agrees upon and what works, and the traditional nuclear family unit has worked for thousands of years and they don't like seeing that sullied.
And yes when it comes to families, there are people that have concerns over two grown men adopting a little boy. And if you say, well that's just ridiculous, then why is it that we don't allow a single man to adopt a young girl, why only married couples?
So when you have a question of morality which is subjective and based on belief systems and varying moral compasses, its not something that the feds should be allowed to push on the states, and that should be something the states can decide for themselves. The same with some states wanting to end the war on drugs, its a moral issue, and if the people of a state decide that they want to try abandoning that and try another course, then that's up to them.
I see the stupidity of bigotry and slippery slope arguments really has hit critical mass in this thread.
I'm just going to be blunt, If you believe that this decision somehow justifies allowing marriage between 2 entities that cannot legally consent (which includes minors, animals, inanimate objects), then you are just frankly stupid. You are just trying to argue a bullshit logical fallacy and just need to stop now.
I'm just going to be blunt, If you believe that this decision somehow justifies allowing marriage between 2 entities that cannot legally consent (which includes minors, animals, inanimate objects), then you are just frankly stupid. You are just trying to argue a bullshit logical fallacy and just need to stop now.
Everyone is treated equally.
No one can control their sexual attractions. Some people are attracted sexually to animals. Some people are attracted sexually to people under 18 years old. Some people are attracted to the same sex.
Whether or not you act on those attractions, whether or not its morally acceptable in society, and whether or not the state should go as far as to not only allow but to endorse such actions is subjective and up to the people of their states to vote on. Your vote is your vote, and that's perfectly fine. Giving people the right to voice their opinion, recognize that their own beliefs are also just opinions, and cast their vote sure makes maverik mad.
Who decides what is legal and illegal? You and I do via our votes. Those votes are based on opinions, opinions that can change with the population. In Germany the age of consent is 14 whereas in the United States its 18. Who is right, and who is wrong? Different groups can weigh the morality and affect on society of behavior and determine if its something that they wish to endorse or not. People should be given the right to vote and have their votes counted, not overruled by the federal government.Dekoth-E- said:
50Cal
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 218
First i never mentioned anything about polygamy. and frankly if a bunch of consenting ADULTS want to all marry one another then so be it and it honestly shouldn't be against the law. I have nothing against it but you seem to think that because im for equality im by proxy against polygamy. Some of our laws are dumb and need to be updated but that doesn't mean that we shouldnt start somewhere. and gay marriage is a easy place to start because the only argument against to adults that happen to be homosexual marrying is because 'Muh bible" (the bible was fine with slavery and and hell even things that are similar to that that you see in modern day sharia law.)
As for being able to marry a 14 year old. A 14 year old lacks the mental development and understanding of what it means to be married and what commitment really means. They just aren't ready for that. You know... kind of like why we don't send 14 year olds to the front lines of a warzone. Also at the end of the day you're talking about a legal adult trying to marry a non-legal adult. There are reasons why 18 was the age picked to be considered an adult. Probably the same basis as to why marrying a child is not okay.
As for the moral aspect of it i don't really feel the need to debate the numerous morality issues of why marrying and having sex with an underage girl is wrong. And most of the people that want this to be allowed also happen to be the same kind of people that would have sex with children if it they wouldn't get caught (mostly because they couldn't get a real woman).
Adding on to the morality part. funny thing, i live my life the way i want to without intentionally following any law. it just so happens that they way i choose to live my life just so happens to fall in line with laws. My own individual moral compass is my laws. ie i don't care about speed limits, but i also dont drive like a bat out of hell in a school zone not because its against the law but because there is a high likelihood that someone could walk out in the street and i would want to hurt them. I never needed a book filled with unproven stories to teach me right from wrong.
Personally i don't care if people don't "like" seeing a tradition sullied. If someone is being treated unequally its not equality. Laws shouldn't end where your feelings begin. and i can guarantee you that if a law passed putting you at a disadvantage you'd be pissed too.
there are people that have concerns over two grown men adopting a little boy.
I have concerns about stupid people being able to vote.
I have a concerns with racists being allowed in our country
I have a concerns with religious nut jobs sending their impressionable kids to jesus camps
I have a concerns with Christians being around little boys
I have concerns with mentally unstable, confederate flag waving, rednecks having access to anything more dangerous than a paper bag.
But this is a "free" nation, so i deal with it.
I'm not gay nor religious. But growing up in a KKK state and being born with the "wrong" skin color taught me that inequality is wrong, and one can never fully understand what thats like until they have survived it
PS. an overwhelming majority of child molesters and child rapist are white Christians (the same group that make up the overwhelming majority pushing to be able to marry children). Does that mean we need to start passing laws that forbid white Christians from being around children or adopting children? No because that would be fucked up
an overwhelming number of people responsible for the genocide of innocents have been white. Does that mean that we should pass laws that state that whites cannot hold positions of power? No, because that would be fucked up
The easiest way for people to solve issues like this one (including stuff like abortion, racism, being able to marry a child) you need to put yourself in the other persons shoes. What if you have a 14 year old daughter and some man that you didnt know wanted to marry her? If you choose to be honest with yourself i think i know your answer. If you had a daughter that was raped and she got pregnant would you want her to have the choice to get rid of the child (a child that will be a living and breathing reminder of the horrible events)? Im sure you'd be happier with laws that protected her ability to choose rather than a law that has already made that decision for her regardless of her opinion on the matter.
one sides argument, by nature is oppressive. the other side gives people options
sorry about the bad grammar. I'm tired as shit and frankly dont care.
TL;DR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHjsaEK4vnw
This was part of the slippery slope that gay-marriage advocates assured would never happen, as it has nothing to do with one another... IMO it does, and you seem to be on the same page.
That clearly isn't the only argument, as has been presented. Its a question of endorsing behavior you believe is immoral (the state endorsing it means the people endorse it by extension via representation), and then of course there is the concern that the only real difference between civil union and full on marriage involves both the sanctity of marriage as an institution for which a gay couple does not represent the intended nuclear family unit that forms the base of society as a whole, and the concern that it allows two gay men to adopt a little boy which a lot of people are uncomfortable with, for the same reason they won't allow a single straight man to adopt a little girl.
I agree, but that's certainly subjective. Liberals say that a 14 year old can consent to having a sex change with parental consent, but they can't get married with parental consent. Which is it?
People say the EXACT SAME THING about homosexuals and transsexuals, that it can't even be debated how morally wrong it is, that it should be painfully obvious that it goes against nature.
And like you, I'm not gay or religious or really even care, what I do care about are states rights and the right of the people to have their votes tallied and counted, and not overruled by the federal government. You would probably be saying the same thing if all the states wanted same sex marriage but the federal government were the ones getting in the way and outlawing it. The big difference is that I'm happy with the states that vote either way, as long as its their majority will to undergo a social experiment.
Are you claiming all "Liberals" say this, or just one or two? Do you have any references? I could trot out quotes from "Christians" saying anything I want given a large enough population.
It was pushed by left-wingers into law, meaning they have majority support, and opposed by conservatives. If it were one or two, then it wouldn't have any support and would be illegal.
In fact, its bad enough that in some states at age 15 you can get sex reassignment surgery AGAINST parental wishes paid for by the government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/nyregion/transgender-minors-gender-reassignment-surgery.html?_r=0
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,773
Focus broski focus. Marriage not sex reassignments. Just because one group does something backwards doesn't mean everything they do is bad.
Hitler pushed for a genocidal rampage and also pushed for art. Doesn't meant art is a bad thing.
You may not have read through the thread, its relevant to the discussion. The argument was that while male+male marriage is moral (I argue its subjective), male+young female is immoral without question, because a young female can't make such an important decision. I agree, but the same liberals argue that young person can decide to undergo irreversible genital mutilation via sex reassignment, paid for by tax payers no less. Its a hell of a lot easier to get divorced than to change your mind about having your penis turned into a vagina and go on sex hormones that will change the bone structure of a growing teen. Its pure hypocrisy and simply a matter of liberals wanting to promote liberal ideology where anything gay/transexual/transracial/whatever is championed.
If our federal government can't step in and override state laws that flagrantly trample on peoples constitutional rights, then it serves no purpose. Just because the majority of voting people in a particular state believe something, doesn't mean they get to shit on the rights of everyone else who doesn't.
I think you meant to say:
No, there aren't any difficult questions to answer. Your argument is a complete logical fallacy and blatant bullshit. Laws that specifically trample on rights given to people in our constitution have no business existing..Period. It doesn't matter how many assholes support it. The next thing that frankly needs to happen is the federal government needs to force the abolishing of all "Blue laws", you know all those blatantly christian laws that have zero business being laws. That whole equality of religion thing that christians love to forget when it doesn't support their agenda of discrimination.
There's no constitutional right to gay-marriage.
For example, if you tell every single person in the United States that they are entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex, as is normal/natural, then that's a universal rule that applies to everyone the same. Polygamists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs beastialists, and so forth can't really come forward and say "well I prefer something else" and claim discrimination, as the treatment for all people is still the same. All people, regardless of race or gender, can't have sex with or marry a deceased person. Its a universal rule.
Sorry, you're right, I missed that line.
Its so laughable, dis-proven, and inadequate, that you couldn't handle addressing even a single one... and when proven completely wrong, you never admit to it and just move the goal post and claim you never said that when its quoted in uneditable text, lol! There's nothing wrong with having opinions, but you are unable to support your opinion with anything objective or distinguish between opinion and fact.
Just a simple demonstration of how much ducman is willing to twist fact to suit his arguments while accusing others of doing so
First of all, Federal Congress did not pass a mandate that minors be allowed to undergo sex reassignment. Medicaid is federally subsidized, not fully funded, and administered by each state according to its own laws.
Now keep that tidbit in mind as you read through this...because remember ducman previously stated that he was all about state rights...right?
So the fact of the matter is there are no laws precluding minors from sex reassignment. None. There are no federal laws requiring it be allowed because there are no federal laws against it. The feds are currently silent. He cites Oregon's age of consent for sex reassignment at 15 but ignores New York's age of consent at 21 in the article he quotes. Anecdotally, I've been to NY and I've lived in Oregon for some years and I'd argue that NY is much more liberal than Oregon but that's really neither here nor there I suppose.
Oregon's age of consent doesn't have anything to do with liberals arguing for kids to get sex reassignment surgeries. In fact, Oregon was the first state to allow minors access to puberty blocking drugs, which is a stop-gap used in the rest of the advanced Western societies so that adolescents can figure themselves out before doing something irreversible.
Here is the actual law:
http://www.basicrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/OHP-FAQ-for-Community-Partners.pdf
You'll notice that this law is quite strict actually in who can obtain treatment for gender disorder. But more importantly, perhaps, you'll notice this law hinges on Oregon's constitutional right for its citizens, starting at the age of 15, to seek medical treatment (in general).
Oregon has a long legal tradition of allowing its citizens to make their own medical decisions and seek medical treatment as young as age 15...and nothing specifically to do with gender reassignment for kids.
Oregon has been on the forefront of medical paradigm shifts for much of its history.
Some of you old enough might remember Oregon being at the epicenter of the assisted suicide debate decades ago. They were also the 2nd state to legalize medical marijuana way back in 1998 (and they decriminalized minor possession over 40 years ago).
But the most crucially interesting facet of this to me is how much ducman is willing to yap out both sides of his ass on this issue since he proclaims he's all about state rights but then lambasts Oregon for exercising its state's prerogatives in an area the feds are silent about in some issues (like sex hormone therapy for minors), against the feds on other issues (like assisted suicide and marijuana laws), but not when it comes to homosexual marriage....hmmm
First of all, Federal Congress did not pass a mandate that minors be allowed to undergo sex reassignment. Medicaid is federally subsidized, not fully funded, and administered by each state according to its own laws.
Now keep that tidbit in mind as you read through this...because remember ducman previously stated that he was all about state rights...right?
So the fact of the matter is there are no laws precluding minors from sex reassignment. None. There are no federal laws requiring it be allowed because there are no federal laws against it. The feds are currently silent. He cites Oregon's age of consent for sex reassignment at 15 but ignores New York's age of consent at 21 in the article he quotes. Anecdotally, I've been to NY and I've lived in Oregon for some years and I'd argue that NY is much more liberal than Oregon but that's really neither here nor there I suppose.
Oregon's age of consent doesn't have anything to do with liberals arguing for kids to get sex reassignment surgeries. In fact, Oregon was the first state to allow minors access to puberty blocking drugs, which is a stop-gap used in the rest of the advanced Western societies so that adolescents can figure themselves out before doing something irreversible.
Here is the actual law:
http://www.basicrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/OHP-FAQ-for-Community-Partners.pdf
You'll notice that this law is quite strict actually in who can obtain treatment for gender disorder. But more importantly, perhaps, you'll notice this law hinges on Oregon's constitutional right for its citizens, starting at the age of 15, to seek medical treatment (in general).
Oregon has a long legal tradition of allowing its citizens to make their own medical decisions and seek medical treatment as young as age 15...and nothing specifically to do with gender reassignment for kids.
Oregon has been on the forefront of medical paradigm shifts for much of its history.
Some of you old enough might remember Oregon being at the epicenter of the assisted suicide debate decades ago. They were also the 2nd state to legalize medical marijuana way back in 1998 (and they decriminalized minor possession over 40 years ago).
But the most crucially interesting facet of this to me is how much ducman is willing to yap out both sides of his ass on this issue since he proclaims he's all about state rights but then lambasts Oregon for exercising its state's prerogatives in an area the feds are silent about in some issues (like sex hormone therapy for minors), against the feds on other issues (like assisted suicide and marijuana laws), but not when it comes to homosexual marriage....hmmm
I find it absolutely hysterical how often you accuse others of doing PRECISELY what you subsequently do, and in this case completely misrepresent my argument.
The point of bringing up the left's promotion of sex reassignment for minors, was NOT in any shape or form a question of whether the states or the federal government should be ruling on this... not by a mile. Yet you pretend that I was somehow advocating the the feds should be able to overrule states on that issue, which is ludicrous, as I very specifically explained that the point was to address the hypocrisy in the left's support of sex reassignment for minors (in that case without so much as parental consent) while in the same breath arguing that minors are unable to make important decisions such as marriage.
As I have clearly stated, verbatim, is that the people of a state should have the right to have their opinions on subjective questions of morality counted, and not overruled by the state. And since when have I ever supported that the feds have any right on overruling states on issues like assisted suicide or the war on drugs (marijuana legalization)? Misunderstandings are fine, but especially since in previous conversations you know that I support assisted suicide and marijuana legalization for Texas, this is just another troll attempt to prop up a ludicrous straw man as usual.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
The rest of the thread that involves the linkage between gender reassignment and gay marriage consist largely of your posts that attempt to link the two together. So when Dayaks or anyone else reads the rest of the thread, all they'll see is you ducman69'ing as hard as you can into the argument as somehow relevant and worth getting upset about.
There isn't a leftist promotion of sex reassignment in Oregon.
Medicaid is run by the state of Oregon. Medicaid in Oregon allows people diagnosed with GID to undergo sex reassignment after extensive review. Oregon implemented an allowance for puberty blocker medication, as well.
The medical benefits extend to 15 year olds and the mental health benefits to 14 year olds because of longstanding law in Oregon that defines those ages for age of consent in medical matters.
You misrepresented or misunderstood the second part of my point, as well.
I didn't say you were against Oregon for those things. I listed them as things Oregon was against the feds on.
I was pointing out that you are criticizing how Oregon runs Medicaid and medical age of consent and that's inconsistent with your argument that states should be able to define marriage.
I didn't say you were against Oregon for those things. I listed them as things Oregon was against the feds on.
I was pointing out that you are criticizing how Oregon runs Medicaid and medical age of consent and that's inconsistent with your argument that states should be able to define marriage.
Nonsense... and I've said it again, there was never any debate over whether the feds should overrule Oregon or that Oregon shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on subjective matters of morality (in fact, again, verbatim I have said the opposite). *facepalm*
It was never a criticism of state rights, or could even be interpreted that way by a rational honest person, but a criticism of the hypocrisy in those leftists that both support sex reassignment in minors even without parental consent while in the same breath saying that children (in particular girls) are too young to make decisions regarding something like marriage, as a defense for why underage marriage is immoral (not that I disagree as I wouldn't let my daughter marry young). The demonstrates that they are completely inconsistent in objective defense of their opinions flip-flopping while very much consistent in pushing their agenda using whatever mental gymnastics are required for the occasion.
I think you understand this completely, which is why as usual you go on the offensive and accuse me of the same thing to try and deflect from such obvious hypocrisy.
Or please quote specifically the line where I hinted that the federal government should overrule Oregon... yeah, I didn't think so. But you've accomplished your mission of deflecting while hopefully burying the condemning topical information with useless back and forth bickering forcing people to repeat themselves ad nauseam. *golf clap*
A blatant lie, and you know it... but as usual, you don't do any leg work to demonstrate this. The left has been pushing for transgender babies and championing gender self-selection in children vocally across the nation for years now, and blue state Oregon with its quite liberal Portland area is no exception (evidenced as well by your example of supporting assisted suicide which most conservatives oppose).
Well, they don't call it "transgender babies" specifically, but its the liberal LGBT/SJW movement under the false-banner of Civil Rights not to assign a gender to an infant (no pinks/blues or boy/girl clothes and hairstyles and so forth), and instead to allow the child to decide what gender they are, which they then choose at a young age before they are adults and even experienced sexuality with the hope that their "progressive" preened and prodded mind may convince say a young boy to decide he's a girl and no one, not even the child's parents, should be able to stop him... ignoring the fact that changing a child's gender is impossible, as a man can't be changed into a woman, just a man with a mutilated penis, selective placement of silicon, and a hormone imbalance. They also disregard studies like this one from even ultra-leftist Swedish Universities that tracked post-op transgenders and found an unbelievably higher than normal suicide rate (20x), mental health issues, and dissatisfaction, in order to push the true agenda of normalizing abnormal behavior.
And absolutely conservatives in the state and elsewhere have weighed in with their own moral compass in opposition to turning teenage boys into girls, which you are very much aware of.
What happens when the child's guardian consents to the marriage. Can the marriage be stopped?
The Supreme Court is a hammer and not a scalpel. They didn't say gay marriage was ok, they said the state couldn't deny it. If the state can't deny it, they can't deny it, period. Polygamy is a given, A person who has a guardian make decisions for them (children, elderly, mentally impaired) suddenly appear on the table.
I can't demonstrate a negative
You made the claim that there was some leftist plot in federal congress and linked that NYT article as evidence. It doesn't support what you wrote so you have to go *your* legwork to come up with relevant evidence in support of your claim. The onus is not on me to go around doing research to disprove your unsubstantiated points.