SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage

[BVS]

Only if they were straight robots, don't you get it?

 

[Irvine511]

i'd marry this robot:

 

[diamond]

Only if they were straight robots, don't you get it?

No.

Please elaborate.

dbs

 

[BVS]

No.

Please elaborate.

dbs

Well as INDY pointed out, if gay robots were allowed to marry all the straight robots would get divorced, it's simple math.

You should look into it, maybe you can deprogram one down to your intellect.

 

[martha]

As long as the black robots aren't allowed to marry the white robots.

 

[diamond]

I think it's talking about humans marrying robots.

So, you guys think it ok for a human to marry a robot be it- a gay human, or a straight human?

dbs

 

[BVS]

I think it's talking about humans marrying robots.

So, you guys think it ok for a human to marry a robot be it- a gay human, or a straight human?

dbs

Don't continue to be an idiot...

 

[financeguy]

You should look into it, maybe you can deprogram one down to your intellect.

The Devil's Advocate thread was closed for at lot less than this.

Some posters seem to get away with comments like the above more than others.

Just sayin'.

 

[yolland]

This is not a thread for discussing human-robot marriages, diamond.

 

[redhotswami]

i can't believe i'm feeding this discussion...

i don't understand the purpose of marrying a robot. obviously robots do not have rights. so one isn't looking to share property, accounts, last will and testament, child custody or anything.

i honestly don't understand how this is even relevant.


eta: oops, yolland beat me to it

yolland

 

[BVS]

The Devil's Advocate thread was closed for at lot less than this.

Some posters seem to get away with comments like the above more than others.

Just sayin'.

But it's OK to equate homosexuals with robots?

Get over yourself...

 

[diamond]

This is not a thread for discussing human-robot marriages, diamond.

It is a thread about redifining the meaning of the word marriage though, and that was my point.

dbs

 

[BVS]

It is a thread about redifining the meaning of the word marriage though, and that was my point.

dbs

And no one has ever suggested that we should be able to marry our computers or a toolbox, and that was her(and every other thinking person's) point.

 

[yolland]

It is a thread about whether or not gay people should have the legal right to get married. Period. That does not make it sarcastic open season on the marriageable availability to humans of chickens, cockroaches, cyborgs, blades of grass or what the hell else.

Drop it.

 

[martha]

It is a thread about redifining the meaning of the word marriage though, and that was my point.

dbs

No it isn't. Marriage is still marriage.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

i can't believe i'm feeding this discussion...

i don't understand the purpose of marrying a robot. obviously robots do not have rights. so one isn't looking to share property, accounts, last will and testament, child custody or anything.

i honestly don't understand how this is even relevant.


eta: oops, yolland beat me to it

yolland

Exactly. Thank you. It's a thing called consent, people, not that hard, really.

That said, I really don't give a flying pig's behind who or what you want to marry. As long as both parties are madly in love and fully consenting and all that good stuff, that's all that matters to me.

Meant to respond to this last night, too:

all this debate over marriage. and how many of us walk the talk we give??? how many are REALLY going to vote for the candidate who DOES believe that all are equal and believes that love defines marriage and will create legislation in support of that? how many are REALLY going to vote for a candidate that is pro-gay marriage?

I can safely say I would. If I know a candidate is not only against gay marriage, but also wants to try and actively stop it from happening, they aren't getting any support from me. That was one reason (of many) why I could never put a vote down for Bush.

Right now, unfortunately, it seems to be the libertarian party only who's in favor of gay marriage. Which is great, don't get me wrong-I'd just love for once to see a Democrat (or a Republican, it certainly isn't implausible) come right out and say, "Yes, I support same-sex marriage and I will work to make sure that it is legal." (either that or say they support it and fail to understand why people's personal love lives should be anyone else's beeswax). And any candidate from any party that says that, they'll get my support.

Angela

 

[financeguy]

And any candidate from any party that says that, they'll get my support.

Even if you disagree with every single one of their other stances?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Even if you disagree with every single one of their other stances?

I guess I'd just assume that someone who is pro-gay marriage would also likely be someone I'd agree with in quite a few other areas. But that is a good point and question. I'd say it'd depend on what the other issues are that they and I would disagree on. If they're pro gay-marriage but also, say, very pro-war, that would indeed make it tougher to throw my support at them, I won't lie.

Angela

 

[redhotswami]

I'd just love for once to see a Democrat (or a Republican, it certainly isn't implausible) come right out and say, "Yes, I support same-sex marriage and I will work to make sure that it is legal."

www.kucinich.us

this is a bit more specific info: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Civil_Rights.htm

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Thank you for that link, unico . I've heard a bit about this guy in the past...looking at that link right now I think it's safe to say that, unless somebody else really winds up convincing me they should be the one I vote for, this is the guy who's gonna have my vote . I really like what I'm reading here.

Angela

 

[phillyfan26]

It is a thread about redifining the meaning of the word marriage though, and that was my point.

dbs

With human beings, genius. So, either you're making a horrible joke of the discussion or you're equating homosexuals to inanimate objects. I really hope that it's the former.

Jesus Christ.

Anyway, Dennis Kucinich is by far the best candidate in the race, his stances on many issues are exactly where they should be.

 

[Irvine511]

chickens, cockroaches, cyborgs, blades of grass or what the hell else.

apparently, in the eyes of some of us, these are all of equal worth as the average homosexual.

 

[redhotswami]

Thank you for that link, unico . I've heard a bit about this guy in the past...looking at that link right now I think it's safe to say that, unless somebody else really winds up convincing me they should be the one I vote for, this is the guy who's gonna have my vote . I really like what I'm reading here.

Angela

i'm glad you like the link! i agree with pfa that kucinich is the candidate that makes the most sense to me. he has always been pro-equal rights and is certainly not shy about it.

 

[martha]

So. Has INDY abandoned his thread?

 

[Vincent Vega]

The Devil's Advocate thread was closed for at lot less than this.

Some posters seem to get away with comments like the above more than others.

Just sayin'.

Well, this was a bit more plain, but it certainly wasn't more offensive as diamond's approach to this topic, or statements he made in the past about e.g. homosexuals, liberals or atheists.

 

[INDY500]

(actual thread quotes)
"offensive stupidity"
"hateful tripe"
"ignorance"
"hatred and homophobia"
"total bullshit"
"blatant homophobia"
"nonsense"
"unmitigated hateful crap"
"bigoted filth"
"I want the drugs you are on..."
" drunk with hatred of homosexuals"
"act(ing) as though a gay person is a lesser person than I"
"crush(ing) others liberties"

One or two word dismissals and personal attacks are the type of intellectual debate that is supposed to change your opponents (of which there are more of than proponents) deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?

There are a couple of exceptions and you can read down the posts and identify them pretty quickly. To the rest I'll just say... you're not helping.

 

[phillyfan26]

Glad to see you're reading the arguments. Oh wait...

 

[phillyfan26]

I've yet to hear a single secular argument about it. Not a single, solitary one.

 

[Irvine511]

"act(ing) as though a gay person is a lesser person than I"

um, what else are you arguing?

anyway, i look forward to your responses to my posts, i've put the time in, so i expect the same in return.

 

[redhotswami]

there was one guy who was an atheist...he posted awhile ago why he was against same-sex marriage (or couples for that matter). i think his name was AussieU2fanman. I haven't seen him post in ages.