58°
Weather by

View Full Forecast

Login | Register

facebook Icon rss Icon twitter Icon

Short thoughts

Back to Forum: Greenville News Board
178 replies [Last post]

WK5
User offline. Last seen 1 year 47 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2010
PittCountyPride wrote:
They are not and can never be "married", Spatic. They win nothing in North Carolina. Time for those who practice incest and bestiality to demand their rights since no one can tell them who to "love"!
PCP, we know this will all go in the same way the destroyer has taken other such token lies and fictionally federalized it. As with all the other issues, they too will continue to snatch and grab and only feel more empty as their inner thirsts and hungers will drive them all to worse things. We can mourn and pray for them. It is all just as the Word says and that will only work to further sift out for God's harvest. Grow in faith even as we are forced to watch them go further into the dark reaches. Continue to try to reach for them. Be of good cheer.
"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst." C.S. Lewis
Dr. Spatic
User offline. Last seen 1 year 43 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2010
PittCountyPride wrote:
They are not and can never be "married", Spatic. They win nothing in North Carolina. Time for those who practice incest and bestiality to demand their rights since no one can tell them who to "love"!
Fraid not.
“Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
PCP makes a valid point........If the state can't discriminate against homosexual participants who want to " marry " just like normal people do, why then can the state discriminate against a guy who wants to marry his dog........a gal who wants to marry her favorite cucumber........Moreover, where does the state derive the power to limit the number of people who are involved in a marriage contract to only two? This mess ain't a slippery slope it's Niagra Falls.........
Dr. Spatic
User offline. Last seen 1 year 43 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2010
Mike13 wrote:
PCP makes a valid point........If the state can't discriminate against homosexual participants who want to " marry " just like normal people do, why then can the state discriminate against a guy who wants to marry his dog........a gal who wants to marry her favorite cucumber........Moreover, where does the state derive the power to limit the number of people who are involved in a marriage contract to only two? This mess ain't a slippery slope it's Niagra Falls.........
How does he make a valid point? Consent. The dog or cucumber cannot say "I do". con·sent (kn-snt) intr.v. con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents 1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent. 2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion. n. 1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission. 2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.
“Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
PittCountyPride
User offline. Last seen 1 year 47 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2010
Dr. Spatic wrote:
How does he make a valid point? Consent. The dog or cucumber cannot say "I do". con·sent (kn-snt) intr.v. con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents 1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent. 2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion. n.r 1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission. 2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.
Why is it that a 16-year-old can give consent and a 15-year-old can't? What difference does one day make? What criteria was used to select 16? If a legislative body "capriciously and arbitrarily" selects a certain age for consent, wouldn't that violate a person's constitutional right? Why can a 16 year old consent to sex, but a person who is 15 years +364 days can't? In a few years you progressives will be arguing "civil rights" for incest and pedophiles... You guys are destroying the American family through no-fault divorce, abortion and sodomy "marriage."...
"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me." Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson, 1862.
Dr. Spatic
User offline. Last seen 1 year 43 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2010
PittCountyPride wrote:
Why is it that a 16-year-old can give consent and a 15-year-old can't? What difference does one day make? What criteria was used to select 16? If a legislative body "capriciously and arbitrarily" selects a certain age for consent, wouldn't that violate a person's constitutional right? Why can a 16 year old consent to sex, but a person who is 15 years +364 days can't? In a few years you progressives will be arguing "civil rights" for incest and pedophiles... You guys are destroying the American family through no-fault divorce, abortion and sodomy "marriage."...
We are talking marriage here. I believe that in most states the age of consent for marriage is the legal age of 18 without parents permission. But yes, you are right. The legislative body defines the age of consent. What is the age of consent for an animal or cucumber?
“Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Dr. Spatic wrote:
How does he make a valid point? Consent. The dog or cucumber cannot say "I do". con·sent (kn-snt) intr.v. con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents 1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent. 2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion. n. 1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission. 2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.
Neither could a person with vocal chord issues..........Not sure the state can discriminate on that basis.........equal protection, don't you know..... If Adam and Steve get " married ", the court is sanctioning this event despite the fact that Steve doesn't have a vagina.........So as you can see, the rules have changed..........all bets are off............We must be " fair " .......Cucumbers want love, too.........
Dr. Spatic
User offline. Last seen 1 year 43 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2010
Mike13 wrote:
Neither could a person with vocal chord issues..........Not sure the state can discriminate on that basis.........equal protection, don't you know..... If Adam and Steve get " married ", the court is sanctioning this event despite the fact that Steve doesn't have a vagina.........So as you can see, the rules have changed..........all bets are off............We must be " fair " .......Cucumbers want love, too.........
Sure they could. You know this is about legal standing right? You can't be that stupid can you? Does the cucumber get insurance, social security, joint spouse tax return, so on?
“Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Here's another problem..........Polygamy...........Why should married folk not be " equal " to non-married in the eyes of the law..........A man can have as many girlfriends as he wants ( at his own risk, lol ).........Why can the state limit the number of wives he can have? For that matter, since this is really a contract/benefits issue, why can't a number of men/women enter into this agreement? Maybe 7 men and 113 women have a proposal for each other? All bets are off now......We have to be " fair ".......
Dr. Spatic
User offline. Last seen 1 year 43 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2010
Mike13 wrote:
Here's another problem..........Polygamy...........Why should married folk not be " equal " to non-married in the eyes of the law..........A man can have as many girlfriends as he wants ( at his own risk, lol ).........Why can the state limit the number of wives he can have? For that matter, since this is really a contract/benefits issue, why can't a number of men/women enter into this agreement? Maybe 7 men and 113 women have a proposal for each other? All bets are off now......We have to be " fair ".......
It is not that they limit polygamy, but currently their are no federal laws that could support it. The questions: Is each spouse entitled to the social security of all the other spouses? How do they file joint tax returns? How is divorce handled? In community property states does the third wife get a third of all assets? How are estate taxes handled? Pensions? Child custody? Right now there are no laws to facilitate the legal contract between more than two people. This may change in the future.
“Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

NCAA

Bless your heart
Bless your heart