“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
Good. Get the government out of the bedroom. These things should never have been ruled upon in the first place, never even considered. Marriage is a romantic and spiritual union above anything else, what were gay couples really fighting for? A piece of paper from a government courthouse declaring their union, and the ability to switch their filing status on their tax forms? Is that how we're defining marriage these days? Worthless pieces of paper and joint tax filing? I get that there are incentives, but that is an issue with the tax code, not whether or not you're considered legally married or, what's the alternative? "Fake" married? Surely your ego is stronger than that.Originally Posted by Poptart
The bottom line is you're married because you say your married, and you go through whatever ritualistic process you believe is necessary to signify that union, you're not married because the government says you're married. That is a legal status which has no immediate consequences for your relationship or how much you and your partner love each other. Even the Church can't say if you're married or not, though they do (and are welcome to) define marriage however their clergy and congregation see fit. Just as gay people are free to exchange rings and tell everyone they are married if that is how they choose to live their life.
By the way, pretty much every state has already taken their sodomy laws off the books by now. If they still exist, I'd be surprised, but there is no where in America right now where it is illegal to be gay. And if it is, then the question is how is it being enforced?
Lmao, glow harder, bro
Excuse me? There is an obvious lack a historical / sociological perspective behind such opinions.
Marriage is a legal institution that protects the family, specifically the children. It's meant to provide a stable environment for their growth and development. Although not really enforced by the community now, marriage used to be an unbreakable social bond, for the simple reason that you can't divorce your children.
It's not a right for grown ups, but for the little ones.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I tend to agree, actually, and is the only reason I would marry for myself. However, people make a big deal about having a "right" to marry when there was nothing stopping anyone before from just declaring they're married to their friends, family, and people they meet on the street. They don't even see it as something that must be ordained by a minister, it has to be a right granted by the government, whose only real interest in regulating marriages is for tax and revenue purposes. The state doesn't care if you have a kid or not, they're never even going to ask. There's probably something to be said for divorce law, and the proceedings surrounding that. I suppose a gay couple not having a right to marry would also entail no rights to alimony, and I don't know how this might differ from declaring a domestic partnership, but that's also not why people get married (unless they're gold diggers). So it's really confusing to me when people take laws about marriage for granted and ask "what about them?" instead of "who invited the government into my love life and personal affairs?"
That is not the grace of god. That is an inability or unwillingness to understand the feelings and experiences of others. The only perspective you can see is your own. You have an apparent lack of empathy and a total disregard for human life outside the womb. You 'love' the unborn because they aren't here. You don't have to deal with them, see them, or listen to them.Oh boy, just got around to reading this thread in earnest and this... well I can't find a way to put this nicely soPolR it is. This hot mess of blatant projection and/or malicious misunderstandings is something only a Death Cultist could come up with.
I've often said it is likely a literal grace from God that I simply cannot get "the demonic perspective" on a visceral level. From a cold, academic aspect I can and do get it. They hate God. Children (especially the unborn) are innocent. God loves and values innocence. Destroying innocence angers and thus "hurts" God. Ergo, to hurt God as much as you can (i.e. to get the most efficiency out of any given action on this front) kill and corrupt the innocent. Killing a random adult is banal. Killing a random child is so much better from the perspective of the demonic.
Flawless logic, but as I also often say, things "on paper" are vastly different from things "in practice". Yeah, if you want to rebel against/hurt God that's how you do it. Kill kids instead of adults. Then there's the actual doing of that shit and feeling good about doing so as you do it.
To draw what is, from my own perspective, a literal equivalence. Could you feel good about pulping the head of some random infant? Stomp on a baby's head really good and hard. Make sure it died a quick though gruesome death? If you could choose between pulping the random adult's head over the infant's head which would you choose? Because if you are pro-choice and honest about it you'd pulp the infant's head to remain logically/ideologically consistent.
You like the idea of playing god--deciding who gets to live and die--and you see no problem with sentencing an innocent person to death:
You think of women in dehumanizing terms.Or as H.L. Mencken put it: "Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard". He is also, funnily enough, popularly thought of as an ILI (his ardent and damn near fanatical admiration of Nietzche speaks to this fact as well).
I do (personally) absolutely adore his "utopian flight" of how any and all political office holders who just so happen to get assassinated likely have it coming and we should all welcome such a world. The assassin in this "utopia" is tried not on the grounds of whether or not they personally actually killed the fucker but, rather, whether the fucker they allegedly terminated deserved it!
That is, it is not "malum in se" to kill a politician. The real question is, instead, whether or not that given politician had it coming. If they did the assassin not only walks but gets a heartfelt pat on the back. If not the assassin gets unceremoniously killed for being the equivalent of a dumbass wokie.
The thunder cunt is now so submissive and breedable it'll make your head spin if you are ignorant of what I've come to learn.
If a teenage girl is raped by a male relative and becomes pregnant, then how is she not innocent? She must sacrifice herself and her future because life means nothing to you once its actually here. Also, you would benefit from trying to see your mom's perspective here.
I was referring to the demonic perspective. Those angels who know who God is, have been in his direct presence, and then choose to oppose him anyway. It's incomprehensible to me on the visceral level why one would oppose what they know to be an omnibenevolent being.
It is exactly because I don't want innocents to die that I am pro-life. Children don't get to choose the circumstances of their conception. They do deserve the chance to live. Further discussion on this is unlikely to bear any fruit. You have your stance and I have mine. Both of us regard the other's stance in the worst moral terms. This is essentially a religious "debate" and once one has made up their mind on that front no amount of "reason" will convince the other side.
You'll have to reach a "crisis of faith" moment before you'll listen sadly. Those are harrowing and hard to induce. Hell, look into the circumstances regarding the author John C. Wright and why he renounced his atheism and converted to Catholicism. There are prayers God will answer if done with an earnest heart and in good faith. Careful though, the divine sense of humor is a hell of a thing.
Interesting thought experiment. What do you think it'd take to cause me to suffer a true crisis of faith? This may be a rather relevant data point. I'm currently juggling several models that so far feed into each other so far as I can tell. You may be able to cause a rather sever hiccup in my overall system if you name something I've glaringly failed to account for...
I could have worded that one better but I stand by the general point. As a male, if you want to fix your relationship with a woman who has kids, first fix your relationship with her kids. They are her kids no doubt and (if she's not utterly fucked in the head) she values their happiness and safety over all other considerations. Make them happy and safe and you become what amounts to the ideal partner.
At least, that's what her brain will be telling her. Once you've done that she'll allow herself (again, if she's not fucked in the head) to get emotionally intimate with you. Emotional intimacy is the cornerstone of the female sex drive. IF she's not desiring sex it's probably because she doesn't feel like you're being intimate with/emotionally bonding to her.
Again, the unborn baby is innocent. The relative is not and ought to be persecuted to the full extent of the law (rapists, especially ones of that type, don't last long in the general population of U.S. State prisons if you catch my drift). Further, she need not sacrifice herself or her future. If she truly does not want to raise the kid it can and should be put up for adoption. Plenty of loving families out there who would like to be great parents for it.
Also, my mom's perspective was that even so I was her baby and she thought the doc was incorrect in his dire prognosis and thus decided to carry me to term. She turned out to be 100 percent correct BTW. I would also point out that Ad Hominem attacks weaken your arguments from a philosophical standpoint. They were also rather poorly done rhetorically. You won't be convincing anyone outside your own choir that I'm a sociopathic misogynistic monster with those. Step up your game!
Last edited by End; 07-01-2022 at 04:48 AM.
He conveniently forgot that Loving v. Virginia is also based on the due process clause lol.
Don't people have anything better to do?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote