Third US State to Legally Reconigze Same-Sex Marriage: Iowa

[quote name='georox']When you get married, you get a license from the Government. This license makes your marriage legally recognized. You don't get this license from your religion. This means that the Govt. controls religion, not *your* religion or any other religion.

GG.

Oh, and for the record, the Church of Crotch Getting Eated by Zombies allows Human and Zombie marriage.[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h4GbdU08Mg

...

NSFW
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Alrighty.
I'm just stating my opinion. My interest in spending another 2 or 3 pages of arguments, stating precedents, reasons, and philosophy to try and convert you to the same opinion is about as high as my interest in seeing Tyra Bank's dick.

Now I fully expect you to believe that is an excuse because I simply can't do the above, and say something colorful and snappy illustrating that belief. Otherwise you wouldn't be Mykevermin.[/QUOTE]

pishposh. I don't want you to "convert to my side" so much as I wish, rather, for you to be informed of your opinions. Because the former will stem from a growth of the latter. ;)

Tyra Banks does not, to the best of my empirical research lookin' at pictures of her over the course of my adolescence, have a dick.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Tyra Banks does not, to the best of my empirical research lookin' at pictures of her over the course of my adolescence, have a dick.[/quote]

It is well disguised... SeanAMI didn't think The Crotch had one either, but one late night in a darkened hospital showed otherwise...
 
[quote name='georox']It is well disguised... SeanAMI didn't think The Crotch had one either, but one late night in a darkened hospital showed otherwise...[/quote]
I kept telling him, that wasn't a first aid kit!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Getting what you want in America today:

A) Don't like something? Put it to the people to vote on.

B) Don't like the results? Try to get the courts give the people the finger, after all, the courts always know what's better than the people do. Of course that means step A, today, is an obsolete, inconsequential, cute formality.

C) Still don't like the courts result? Pay someone in congress to slip it into one of the huge bills none of them will read, which will to override the courts somehow.

D) Don't have enough money to pay off congress? Just point at Europe and invoke international laws and international pressure to affect B and C. It will take a while, but always works.

God bless democracy in the 21st century.

Congrats on those happy with this for only having to take it to step B.[/quote]

This logic would translate into half the civil rights laws of the 50's and 60's never passing.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have to thank my god for the Crotch.

He made another tedious gay thread readable.[/QUOTE]

Trying to find an easy way to comment on this thread, you have once again allowed me to just agree with you FOC.
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']This logic would translate into half the civil rights laws of the 50's and 60's never passing.[/QUOTE]

Sure they would have.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']pishposh. I don't want you to "convert to my side" so much as I wish, rather, for you to be informed of your opinions. Because the former will stem from a growth of the latter. ;)
[/QUOTE]

I have had nothing but time, for a few months, to spend studying patterns in world and country change. Reading tons and tons of material from all over the web. Reading opinions, studies, research, etc.... It's all I've had to do so I'm pretty confident in my opinion, no matter how much you want to belittle it.

Against better judgment, I'll try to explain as simple as I can:

I no longer believe in the "left vs right" bullshit crammed down our throats by everyone and their dog today. It's far more relevant to see a spectrum where total government control is on one side and total anarchy is on the other. I now believe our founding fathers tried their darndest to create a government as close to the "total anarchy" side as possible without risking total battle royale chaos.

It's become obvious to me, that over time, we have slid down the spectrum towards the "total government control". I don't think anyone would argue against that being the case, the arguments center around "should we" and "should we have" - which now, for some reason, manifest themselves as the whole right vs left thing.

One thing that is crystal clear to me now, is that both the "right" and "left" in this country, for the most part, side more with the "total government control" side of the spectrum, but just in different ways and for different reasons.

So much of my new belief structure and philosophies are stemming from this realization, and also realizing that, at heart, I'm really a couple notches left of "total anarchist" -- as I believe freedom and liberty overrides even saftey and oversight, in many cases.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I have had nothing but time, for a few months, to spend studying patterns in world and country change. Reading tons and tons of material from all over the web. Reading opinions, studies, research, etc.... It's all I've had to do so I'm pretty confident in my opinion, no matter how much you want to belittle it.

Against better judgment, I'll try to explain as simple as I can:

I no longer believe in the "left vs right" bullshit crammed down our throats by everyone and their dog today. It's far more relevant to see a spectrum where total government control is on one side and total anarchy is on the other. I now believe our founding fathers tried their darndest to create a government as close to the "total anarchy" side as possible without risking total battle royale chaos.

It's become obvious to me, that over time, we have slid down the spectrum towards the "total government control". I don't think anyone would argue against that being the case, although some would argue it's been mostly a good thing.

So much of my new belief structure and philosophies are stemming from this realization, and also realizing that, at heart, I'm really a couple notches left of "total anarchist" -- as I believe freedom and liberty overrides even saftey and oversight, in many cases.[/quote]

Anarchy (and near-anarchy) sounds great until you realize that it's a system of government in which life is nasty, brutish, and short. This is a sad fact that I personally grapple with all the time.

Ideally I believe government should act much like a well-beloved referee of kids sports. They should enforce the rules, see that everyone gets a fair shot at bat (regardless of who is the coachs son) and preside over the field with an eye for protecting the health and safety of every player especially the weaker ones. They should also be held accountable for their calls and subject to replacement if the people are unhappy with their performance.
 
The funny thing I've always noticed about people who ask for anarchy is that they are inevitably the first ones that would be killed or enslaved. Skinny punks at Hot Topic, the doods hanging around bars but not going into them, people on the 'net who think it's a good idea, and piano tuners.

Because everyone knows piano tuners are the most chaotic bastards of all.
 
I'm not calling for anarchy, nor do I want true anarchy. I just side with that end of the "spectrum" in most cases over the offered alternative.
 
[quote name='camoor']Anarchy (and near-anarchy) sounds great until you realize that it's a system of government in which life is nasty, brutish, and short. This is a sad fact that I personally grapple with all the time.[/quote]

No offense camoor, but since anarchy is, by definition, not a system of government, it doesn't really sound like you know what you're talking about (whether or not you were right).

Ideally I believe government should act much like a well-beloved referee of kids sports. They should enforce the rules, see that everyone gets a fair shot at bat (regardless of who is the coachs son) and preside over the field with an eye for protecting the health and safety of every player especially the weaker ones. They should also be held accountable for their calls and subject to replacement if the people are unhappy with their performance.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a very good analogy. People aren't born into baseball games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']I have had nothing but time, for a few months, to spend studying patterns in world and country change. Reading tons and tons of material from all over the web. Reading opinions, studies, research, etc....[/quote]
I think that pretty much wraps it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top