Originally posted by no1marauderOnce conceived it is only a question of development.
Of course, no liberal would ever make such a preposterous claim though plenty of religious conservatives will insist that the magic God fairy pops a soul into the zygote as soon as sperm and egg join. And then the State should be able to tell the pregnant woman what to do about it.
A modern marriage contract has little to do with who is having sex wit ...[text shortened]... to support the denial of these specific contractual rights to homosexuals remains contemptible,
At what point in development is it socially acceptable to kill it off?
Not everyone agrees, nor should they. It is an attack on our humanity to suggest that one stage of development is inferior/superior to the others.
As far as marriage having nothing to do with sex, you do have couples like the Clintons who are like that, but by in large, this is absurd.
If it is not about sex, then by what authority does the state have to deny any one person or any group of people a marriage license?
Originally posted by checkbaiterthere is a slight difference between allowing for freedom of speech, even hate speech and allowing someone to actually act on that hate speech.
Carl Gallups, a nationally known Baptist pastor and radio host, noted the irony of the left losing its mind over Trump’s election.
“The hypocrisies of the ‘we hate Donald Trump and his supporters’ movement are astoundingly transparent,” he told WND. “The violence is coming from the left. But, wasn’t it the left who has lectured the rest of us about pe ...[text shortened]... of delusion' bursts
http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/left-freaking-out-as-bubble-of-delusion-bursts/
the ones booing Pence couldn't care less that he is a stupid zealot that can't get his head out of his ass. they care that he is a stupid zealot who has proven again and again that he will do a lot of harm while being in a position of power.
"that in the end he must graciously accept the outcome of the election?"
accept the result but not what is to come. never accept trump acting on his campaign promises of hate (nobody knows which of them will keep and which were lies fed to his dumb supporters).
what trump did and say during his campaign is not normal. it is not acceptable. protesting him at every turn is to let him know you will not tolerate him driving america further into hate.
21 Nov 16
Originally posted by whodey"Every liberal will tell you that the lump of cells does not become human until they magically pass out of the birth canal"
Every liberal will tell you that the lump of cells does not become human until they magically pass out of the birth canal, for it is then that the birth fairy waves her wand over the lump of cells and magically transforms it into an uniformed voter.
As for the rant about sex, who cares who is boinking who? The state does, that's who.
Why should the sta ...[text shortened]... h boinking should be sanctioned by the state via a marriage license, a losing position for sure.
not going to bother with this lie.
"for it is then that the birth fairy waves her wand over the lump of cells and magically transforms it into an uniformed voter."
more stupid, inconsequential.
"As for the rant about sex, who cares who is boinking who? The state does, that's who"
yes
"Why should the state be in the business of sanctioning what kind of boinking is going on at all? "
it shouldn't. glad you agree that what pence did was monstrous
"Instead, you prefer to get in peoples faces and argue about which boinking should be sanctioned by the state via a marriage license, a losing position for sure"
as long as some people have that license, you damn right i am going to demand ALL have the same right to that piece of paper.
21 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThese issues have been covered ad infinitum on this Forum. It's not an "issue of development"; it is an issue of a woman's sovereignty over the contents of her own body. Your position denies her that fundamental right even before the fetus is capable of life outside her body. Such a position, based almost entirely on religious belief, is a fundamental attack on her Natural Rights.
Once conceived it is only a question of development.
At what point in development is it socially acceptable to kill it off?
Not everyone agrees, nor should they. It is an attack on our humanity to suggest that one stage of development is inferior/superior to the others.
As far as marriage having nothing to do with sex, you do have couples like the C ...[text shortened]... authority does the state have to deny any one person or any group of people a marriage license?
This has been explained to you many times and you have never even bothered to refute the basic point of why you think the State should have such control over a woman's sovereign right over her own body. You never will.
It's also been explained many, many times here that a marriage contract is simply another form of contractual relation that people are allowed to agree to. Any discrimination in restricting the right to do so has to fulfill some important societal interest. No such interest exists in denying same sex couples that right, while some might in other cases (like age limits for example).
21 Nov 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziNothing was proven. You provided an article with a second hand account and ignored what the father saw and thought.
"It's just like the Californians on the plane who booed the father of the dead soldier."
yeah, it doesn't matter that several people proved you were lying, you will continue to run with that lie. Obviously nobody will bother to revisit that same story again, after you proved time and again you don't feel any shame about your blatant lying.
"Now why d ...[text shortened]... mething."
Another lie, proven to be a lie beyond a shred of doubt, which doesn't matter to you.
21 Nov 16
Originally posted by whodey"At what point in development is it socially acceptable to kill it off?"
Once conceived it is only a question of development.
At what point in development is it socially acceptable to kill it off?
Not everyone agrees, nor should they. It is an attack on our humanity to suggest that one stage of development is inferior/superior to the others.
As far as marriage having nothing to do with sex, you do have couples like the C ...[text shortened]... authority does the state have to deny any one person or any group of people a marriage license?
before being able to survive in an incubator.
" It is an attack on our humanity to suggest that one stage of development is
inferior/superior to the others."
yet it clearly is. a 9 month old baby being taken out of the womb (also known as a birth) can survive. a zygote will not develop without having a woman carry it.
who
"As far as marriage having nothing to do with sex, you do have couples like the Clintons who are like that, but by in large, this is absurd."
so the marriage of a couple of 80 year olds should be disolved?
if the marriage is about sex, should the state monitor it and dissolve it if there isn't any going on?
you didn't think this one through very much, did you? not much of a surprise there
"If it is not about sex, then by what authority does the state have to deny any one person or any group of people a marriage license?"
because people like you put pressure on the state to discriminate people you don't like. no 80 year old has ever been denied a marriage license because he is too old to sex.
nobody who got castrated through any means was ever denied a license.
no asexual person (yes, those exist) was ever denied a marriage license.
21 Nov 16
Originally posted by no1marauderSooo, it is OK for a partial birth abortion at 8 or 9 months?
These issues have been covered ad infinitum on this Forum. It's not an "issue of development"; it is an issue of a woman's sovereignty over the contents of her own body. Your position denies her that fundamental right even before the fetus is capable of life outside her body. Such a position, based almost entirely on religious belief, is a fundamental at ...[text shortened]... ying same sex couples that right, while some might in other cases (like age limits for example).
What needs of society are filled with marriage?
21 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThere is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". Your mention of it is a non sequitur.
Sooo, it is OK for a partial birth abortion at 8 or 9 months?
What needs of society are filled with marriage?
Your second question has been answered on this Forum countless times. I believe I've linked to articles like this several times:
Marriage is linked to health and economic benefits. Married individuals tend to have better physical health, psychological well-being, and a lower mortality risk. Financially, married men tend to earn more, and married women are less likely to fall into poverty. Marriage is also linked to greater wealth accumulation.
http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/1/the-benefits-of-marriage
21 Nov 16
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWait,....wut?
There is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". Your mention of it is a non sequitur.
Your second question has been answered on this Forum countless times. I believe I've linked to articles like this several times:
Marriage is linked to health and economic benefits. Married individuals tend to have better physical health, psychological well-b ...[text shortened]... to greater wealth accumulation.
http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/1/the-benefits-of-marriage
There is no such thing as a partial birth abortion? LOL. Of course there is. So why are partial birth abortions banned? It's because they are deemed too well developed. So my assertion is correct. Abortion all boils down to a beauty contest as to whom Is the most developed and how society values them based upon a certain level of development.
Why limit marriage? Why can the state turn down polygamists?
I notice you also avoided mentioning the welfare of the family unit, I. e., children.
If it were not for children, then there would be no women falling into poverty who were not married at the rates that they do. So as we see, marriage is intimately connected to the sexual affairs of man.
Originally posted by whodeyNo there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". That is a politically motivated term invented by right wingers like yourself in an attempt to misinform the public. Perhaps it worked well enough to misinform you as well. At any rate, such a thing didn't exist so it couldn't be banned; what were banned were certain procedures which may or may not have occurred in the last trimester - almost always to preserve the woman's health or life.
Wait,....wut?
There is no such thing as a partial birth abortion? LOL. Of course there is. So why are partial birth abortions banned? It's because they are deemed too well developed. So my assertion is correct. Abortion all boils down to a beauty contest as to whom Is the most developed and how society values them based upon a certain level of dev ...[text shortened]... ates that they do. So as we see, marriage is intimately connected to the sexual affairs of man.
I note you have failed again, as you have every single time this subject as been advanced, to explain why you think the State should have such control over a woman's sovereign right over her own body. I'll wait; as always in vain.
Since you already know there is no requirement that married people have sex of any kind anymore, you know your claims are logically fallacious. And though you appear to be unaware of this amazing fact, people actually do have sex without being married and sometimes, astonishingly enough, have children, too. Marriage in the modern era is a contractual arrangement giving certain enforceable claims by one party against the other; in a legal sense, the only sense the State is legitimately interested in, it has nothing to do with sex. This has been explained to you so many times on this forum that your pretended ignorance of it is ridiculous.
22 Nov 16
Originally posted by whodey"Sooo, it is OK for a partial birth abortion at 8 or 9 months?"
Sooo, it is OK for a partial birth abortion at 8 or 9 months?
What needs of society are filled with marriage?
there is no such thing, and i am pretty sure we covered this before.
if not, here is some knowledge that you will ignore: there is NO partial birth abortion. not ever. taking a baby from a woman's womb in the 8th or 9th month is called C-section, also known as giving birth.
what can happen is something horribly wrong going with the pregnancy and the baby has to be taken out or the mother dies which would mean the baby dies as well. if the baby can be saved, it will be.
"What needs of society are filled with marriage?"
a couple has a higher buying power. it helps the society if 2 people pool their assets and buy a house together. it helps society if two people share the raising and education of one or more future taxpayer.
as such, it's in society's best interest to encourage two people to get together (in a marriage contract)
22 Nov 16
Originally posted by whodey" LOL. Of course there is"
Wait,....wut?
There is no such thing as a partial birth abortion? LOL. Of course there is. So why are partial birth abortions banned? It's because they are deemed too well developed. So my assertion is correct. Abortion all boils down to a beauty contest as to whom Is the most developed and how society values them based upon a certain level of dev ...[text shortened]... ates that they do. So as we see, marriage is intimately connected to the sexual affairs of man.
you can claim, whodey style, that there is. the facts remain the same. a term invented by some right wingers that has no basis in reality.
"So why are partial birth abortions banned?"
first of all, that's not a thing.
second of all, the way you define it makes it impossible. in the 8th or 9th month there is no fetus anymore, there is a baby. if it is taken out of the womb it can survive in an incubator unless something is horribly wrong. there is no abortion.
"It's because they are deemed too well developed"
yes
"So my assertion is correct."
it's not. you and other right wing nutjobs are trying to inflame public opinion by claiming that a woman can abort her child in the 8th month. that has never been the case. yes, sometimes the pregnancy goes wrong and to continue it would be a severe risk to the mother. as such the baby is taken out and every effort is made to save it, if there isn't something wrong with it.
"Abortion all boils down to a beauty contest as to whom Is the most developed and how society values them based upon a certain level of development."
as does everything. we can kill pigs to make bacon because they are at a certain level of development. we don't kill humans to make bacon because they are at a certain level of development. one is an animal, the other is a human being. a fetus is a lump of cells, a baby is a human being.
"Why limit marriage? Why can the state turn down polygamists?"
because it has been historically a way to opress women. today however, if one can prove they are entering such a union willingly there is no reason to deny them marriage.
"If it were not for children, then there would be no women falling into poverty who were not married at the rates that they do. So as we see, marriage is intimately connected to the sexual affairs of man"
this is too much stupid, someone else take this.