The party of tolerance (political)

Pages

467 posts / 0 new
Last post
beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 Gst don't answer questions if you read the whole forum. #pedophiliaandbeastiality

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?

Spare Stop and think for a moment what two words "by design" means in the context of the discussion and you will find I have answered your question. 
 
By design it takes a man and a woman to procreate. By design two men or two women by themselves can not. There genders will forever preclude them from reproduction.

You wish to draw subtexts into that conversation, and in doing so to validate your point you choose to overlook the very essence of the words "by design".

If you are a man and a woman, by design you are the genders which allow reproduction whether you physically can or not by choice or condition.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Gst... Hasn't your stance on gays and civil unions changed in the last couple of years? Maybe I am wrong... But, I swear you used to argue they shouldn't be granted civil unions and the rights associated with them. No?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

beminoid31 Said:
 Gst don't answer questions if you read the whole forum. #pedophiliaandbeastiality

instead of trying to deflect away from the "changing morals" why not answer a simple question. Do you think the laws in NH that allow a 40 year old man to marry a 13 year old child allow pedophilia?

Do you agree with these laws or are they wrong?

Just where do YOUR morals start to "change" bemi?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

How's about transexuals? Can they marry? And to whom? Or is their nature not by design?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
Gst... Hasn't your stance on gays and civil unions changed in the last couple of years? Maybe I am wrong... But, I swear you used to argue they shouldn't be granted civil unions and the rights associated with them. No?

espringers I have always maintained the title of tradition marriage should remain between a man and a woman. 
 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
How's about transexuals? Can they marry? And to whom? Or is their nature not by design?

espringers, really?

I thought you would have been smarter than to actually put that in writing.

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 I might care if I lived in NH but I don't therefore it's got nothing to do with me so I could careless. Do I think it's wrong:yes but what does that have to do with gay marriage which this topic is about? Your speculating and got way to many theory's and conspiracies for what you think is gonna happen 20yrs from now. Like I said before go out to the pasture and get a new horse to beat on cuz this ones dead already🐎🏃

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?

Spare Stop and think for a moment what two words "by design" means in the context of the discussion and you will find I have answered your question. 
 
By design it takes a man and a woman to procreate. By design two men or two women by themselves can not. There genders will forever preclude them from reproduction.

You wish to draw subtexts into that conversation, and in doing so to validate your point you choose to overlook the very essence of the words "by design".

If you are a man and a woman, by design you are the genders which allow reproduction whether you physically can or not by choice or condition.

  

I'm not dumb, I know what you mean when you say by design. Thanks for highlighting it though.  A woman with androgen insensitivity will never be able to procreate.  A woman with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser will never be able to procreate.  Was this by design?  

You've missed the point that design doesn't always work the way nature and/or God intended.  Which is why some people are gay, or why some other people have abnormal chromosomes, or some people have intersex conditions.  You are the one who stated that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children together.  

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll have to guess.  I will have to guess you would allow a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome to get married to a man.  What about the fact that "she" is chromosomally male?  So how were her sexual preferences developed? 

She is "different".  Most gay people will tell you that they recognize that they are "different".  The design didn't work out for them.  So let's call them unnatural and deny them rights that the government affords to others, right?  Wrong.


beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 But then again you probably don't think I got morals since I haven't been to church in about 17yrs and can't see myself going anytime soon either

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

Pinecone, JR.'s picture
Pinecone, JR.
Offline
Joined: 10/8/10

schamgma, this otta get rid of this discusioun :)

I'll catch more eye's than you

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:
 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?

Spare Stop and think for a moment what two words "by design" means in the context of the discussion and you will find I have answered your question. 
 
By design it takes a man and a woman to procreate. By design two men or two women by themselves can not. There genders will forever preclude them from reproduction.

You wish to draw subtexts into that conversation, and in doing so to validate your point you choose to overlook the very essence of the words "by design".

If you are a man and a woman, by design you are the genders which allow reproduction whether you physically can or not by choice or condition.

  

I'm not dumb, I know what you mean when you say by design. Thanks for highlighting it though.  A woman with androgen insensitivity will never be able to procreate.  A woman with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser will never be able to procreate.  Was this by design?  

You've missed the point that design doesn't always work the way nature and/or God intended.  Which is why some people are gay, or why some other people have abnormal chromosomes, or some people have intersex conditions.  You are the one who stated that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children together.  

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll have to guess.  I will have to guess you would allow a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome to get married to a man.  What about the fact that "she" is chromosomally male?  So how were her sexual preferences developed? 

She is "different".  Most gay people will tell you that they recognize that they are "different".  The design didn't work out for them.  So let's call them unnatural and deny them rights that the government affords to others, right?  Wrong.

spare I guess I have to make it pretty basic then. 

 "by design"  a person is a man or a woman.

By design the only way a new life can enter this world is if a man and a woman create it.
 
Pretty simple if you aren't trying to deflect away from a pretty basic principal.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

We ask those ?s not cause we are Stupid... But In response to your by design silliness.

Let's go back to the 14 year olds... No we don't support it. There is a huge difference tho.. In nh, the state has granted more rights to the class of folks aged 14-18... They aren't taking them away or restricting them. When analyzing these things from a legal perspective, we don't care if you grant more rights... But courts start to take notice when you restrict them... Even more notice when the discrimination occurs in a protected class. We've been down this road before gst. If one state wants to grant more rights to 14 year olds, thats their perogative regardless of the fact my moral compass points the other way. But when a state wants to restrict rights against people based on their sex, the analysis will involve more than just a moral compass... You will have to prove you are doing it to prevent some harm to society. You remember that discussion?

You didn't answer my ? On civil unions. Its clear where you stand on traditional marriage. And now you seem to be OK with states granting rights associated with civil unions. But my memory is that you used to oppose the granting of those rights too based on your same incrementalism argument.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

I've answered your questions. You feel no need to address my questions of you. And I'm the one deflecting?  If a person is chromosomally 46 XY, but their body doesn't respond to testosterone and other androgens, they develop the body of a woman. Is that a man or is it a woman? Is it an example of "the design" not panning out, kinda like when a person is born gay?

By the way, thanks for using the condescending tone but not knowing when to use the word "principle". That made me laugh. 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:
 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?

Spare Stop and think for a moment what two words "by design" means in the context of the discussion and you will find I have answered your question. 
 
By design it takes a man and a woman to procreate. By design two men or two women by themselves can not. There genders will forever preclude them from reproduction.

You wish to draw subtexts into that conversation, and in doing so to validate your point you choose to overlook the very essence of the words "by design".

If you are a man and a woman, by design you are the genders which allow reproduction whether you physically can or not by choice or condition.

  

I'm not dumb, I know what you mean when you say by design. Thanks for highlighting it though.  A woman with androgen insensitivity will never be able to procreate.  A woman with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser will never be able to procreate.  Was this by design?  

You've missed the point that design doesn't always work the way nature and/or God intended.  Which is why some people are gay, or why some other people have abnormal chromosomes, or some people have intersex conditions.  You are the one who stated that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children together.  

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll have to guess.  I will have to guess you would allow a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome to get married to a man.  What about the fact that "she" is chromosomally male?  So how were her sexual preferences developed? 

She is "different".  Most gay people will tell you that they recognize that they are "different".  The design didn't work out for them.  So let's call them unnatural and deny them rights that the government affords to others, right?  Wrong.

spare I guess I have to make it pretty basic then. 

 "by design"  a person is a man or a woman.

By design the only way a new life can enter this world is if a man and a woman create it.
 
Pretty simple if you aren't trying to deflect away from a pretty basic principal.


espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

And you aren't answering the ? On the person with male or female sex organs but other chromosome s... Who should they be allowed to marry? The person they can procreate with or the person their Dna says they should?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

See... Here is the difference when it comes to us and the 14 year olds... We disagree with it. But we aren't telling nh what to do. You know why? Cause its their business AND ( and that's a big and) they aren't restricting rights. They are expanding them.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
We ask those ?s not cause we are Stupid... But In response to your by design silliness.

Let's go back to the 14 year olds... No we don't support it. There is a huge difference tho.. In nh, the state has granted more rights to the class of folks aged 14-18... They aren't taking them away or restricting them. When analyzing these things from a legal perspective, we don't care if you grant more rights... But courts start to take notice when you restrict them... Even more notice when the discrimination occurs in a protected class. We've been down this road before gst. If one state wants to grant more rights to 14 year olds, thats their perogative regardless of the fact my moral compass points the other way. But when a state wants to restrict rights against people based on their sex, the analysis will involve more than just a moral compass... You will have to prove you are doing it to prevent some harm to society. You remember that discussion?

You didn't answer my ? On civil unions. Its clear where you stand on traditional marriage. And now you seem to be OK with states granting rights associated with civil unions. But my memory is that you used to oppose the granting of those rights too based on your same incrementalism argument.

espringers can two men create a child together?

Can two women?

Can a man and a woman create a new life?

Remember here the question is not about two specific people just a gender.

You guys are trying to specific issues to "deflect" and there really only is the one issue that you should be able to answer if you answer the three questions above.

didnl;t answer a question!!!!!

man that sucks when people don't answer questions doesn't it.

My stance on allowing people the same "rights" outside of title has softened over the years.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

No. No. And yes. And that's what I thought. So now its just about Websters definition of a word? Now we are getting somewhere... I for one couldn't give two shits how the word is defined in a dictionary or if gays ever get included in Merriam's definition. But, if you guys want to burn up all that energy arguing against a change in a dictionaries defining language, regardless of the legal rights, knock yourself out. we may have found some common ground.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

On a side note, it appears that in California "morals" have "changed" to the point where now a boy, if he believes he has a feminine side can use the girls bathroom or vice versa.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/state-ordering-girls-locker-rooms-open-to-boys/

from the article;
"Ammiano told the Los Angeles Times some parents may be uncomfortable with their children sharing bathrooms with students of a different sex, but he said, "It is also important to protect our children from prejudice."

"There's no trampling of other peoples rights" he said. "There's a recognition that other people have the same rights as you do."

Mr. Ammiano is an openly gay Democrat teacher who pushed this bill thru the legislature.

So for those that are claiming gays are not "forcing" anything onto those that do not agree with their life style, how would you like a 14 year old boy walking into the girls bathroom where your 15 year old daughter is going pee and pulling his pecker out of his pants and taking a leak?

At age 15, I bet most of the pee hits the ceiling instead of the toilet.

Come on guys lets be a little honest here and admit whether you would have a problem with this law being "forced" down your schools throat and having teenage boys standing outside the door of the stall when your daughter is taking a leak all because a gay teacher doesn't want someone's "rights" trampled..

Come on guys you know who you are, answer the question.

Who's "rights" are being trampled here? When did boys peeing in girls bathrooms become a "right"? What got "forced" onto who?

If I lived in Ca, I would like to believe in school my daughter would have the "right" to go pee without some teenage boy standing outside the stall door.

Guess my concerns are "silly" as hey "morals change" and "what should I care" cause this really isn't about "forcing" something onto anyone else.

Now hey if California wants to legalize this crap, so be it. But do NOT lie and claim these kinds of things will NOT happen as our "morals change" because as we speak, they are already.

And what kind of Federal judges that will rule on these things do you think Obama will appoint and the Senate will now push thru unopposed?

espringers how would you feel about a Federal Judge ruling that some teenage boy can walk into your daughters bathroom at school and pull out his pecker and take a leak while she is sitting on the toilet with her pants around her knees so his "rights" are not trampled?

spare, bemi, btr, multi anyone???

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
See... Here is the difference when it comes to us and the 14 year olds... We disagree with it. But we aren't telling nh what to do. You know why? Cause its their business AND ( and that's a big and) they aren't restricting rights. They are expanding them.

I'm not telling NH what to do when it comes to gay marriage either. My concern is here in ND and what an activist Federal judge appointed by a liberal progressive elitist who despises the US Constitution, unopposed due to changed Senate rules because of the same sort of politicians, may rule sometime in the future.

The only reason any other state has been brought into the discussion is to show the things some claim will not happen ARE happening as we speak. (shoveling a little sand away so to speak) and maybe to highlight a bit of hypocrisy.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
No. No. And yes. And that's what I thought. So now its just about Websters definition of a word? Now we are getting somewhere... I for one couldn't give two shits how the word is defined in a dictionary or if gays ever get included in Merriam's definition. But, if you guys want to burn up all that energy arguing against a change in a dictionaries defining language, regardless of the legal rights, knock yourself out. we may have found some common ground.

As of now that word is the legal definition, not Webster's, and THAT is what gays want changed, and those that believe in traditional marriage do not.  

Anyone that claims it is about "rights" is lying.

freiday31's picture
freiday31
Offline
Joined: 6/29/02

espringers, as an attorney, I have a question for you that has nothing to do with gay marriage. What is your take on our society's extremely inconsistent use of age as a determining factor in many facets of life.  For example, what is the age of adulthood?  You can vote at 18, but not drink until 21 and stay on your parents insurance until 26.  But your parents can't access your educational records after age 18 even if paying for said education, housing, living expenses and insurance.  An 18 year old can be sent to prison for statutory rape for having sex with their 15 year old significant other, but that significant other can be tried as an adult after committing a crime.  Hell, there have been 11 year olds tried as adults for murder.  Seems like we need to decide when someone is in fact responsible for themself and their actions and stick to it.

In another topic, not for espringers, I find it rather repulsive when people say it doesn't effect me, cause I don't live there, and jump up on their moral high horse.  If the issue is worth fighting for, you must fight for it universally, not geographically.  Right is right and wrong is wrong. 


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:
I've answered your questions. You feel no need to address my questions of you. And I'm the one deflecting?  If a person is chromosomally 46 XY, but their body doesn't respond to testosterone and other androgens, they develop the body of a woman. Is that a man or is it a woman? Is it an example of "the design" not panning out, kinda like when a person is born gay?

By the way, thanks for using the condescending tone but not knowing when to use the word "principle". That made me laugh. 

spare, what you do not seem to understand is it is about gender. The gay community is not pushing for blonde haired blue eyed men to have the "right" to marry, it is about the gender.

So you can not try to deflect by posing one situation or another as it is irrelevant.

What genders can procreate together?

Your answer is who I think should be given the title of marriage.

Queenofthecats's picture
Queenofthecats
Offline
Joined: 1/3/10


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 

gst Said:

Candiru Said:
 If protecting gay people so they can live their lives without fear of being fired from a job, denied housing, or discriminated against including entering into marriage with another fully consenting adult and all the benefits attached to it;  means I am imposing my morals on others, I will proudly plead guilty.  

Where has anyone suggest gays be fired, denied housing or even denying gays the benefits associated with the legalities of marriage outside a title?

Quit trying to deflect by making false claims.

In ND people can be fired from a job, denied housing, and discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.  There was an attempt to change this during the last legislative session and it failed.    It looked to me like the"good christians" wanted their special rights to treat their neighbors like crap just because of this one particular sin.   How is this loving your neighbor?   How is this going to change peoples hearts?

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 

freiday31 Said:
espringers, as an attorney, I have a question for you that has nothing to do with gay marriage. What is your take on our society's extremely inconsistent use of age as a determining factor in many facets of life.  For example, what is the age of adulthood?  You can vote at 18, but not drink until 21 and stay on your parents insurance until 26.  But your parents can't access your educational records after age 18 even if paying for said education, housing, living expenses and insurance.  An 18 year old can be sent to prison for statutory rape for having sex with their 15 year old significant other, but that significant other can be tried as an adult after committing a crime.  Hell, there have been 11 year olds tried as adults for murder.  Seems like we need to decide when someone is in fact responsible for themself and their actions and stick to it.

In another topic, not for espringers, I find it rather repulsive when people say it doesn't effect me, cause I don't live there, and jump up on their moral high horse.  If the issue is worth fighting for, you must fight for it universally, not geographically.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  

To me it shows how messy the real world can get.   If there is a better way, feel free to suggest it.  

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:
I've answered your questions. You feel no need to address my questions of you. And I'm the one deflecting?  If a person is chromosomally 46 XY, but their body doesn't respond to testosterone and other androgens, they develop the body of a woman. Is that a man or is it a woman? Is it an example of "the design" not panning out, kinda like when a person is born gay?

By the way, thanks for using the condescending tone but not knowing when to use the word "principle". That made me laugh. 

spare, what you do not seem to understand is it is about gender. The gay community is not pushing for blonde haired blue eyed men to have the "right" to marry, it is about the gender.

So you can not try to deflect by posing one situation or another as it is irrelevant.

What genders can procreate together?

Your answer is who I think should be given the title of marriage.

gst, my questions are not irrelevant.  If you were to work on an answer to them, you might see that what you call gender is not as straightforward as you think it is.  A person born with mixed gonadal dysgenesis has both male and female features.  In years past, a gender would have been "assigned" to that person at a very young age, with the plan to raise them as either a girl or a boy, depending upon whichever their anatomy most resembled.  What then, might happen when one of these people raised as a boy realizes that "he" feels more like a woman?  What gender is "he"?

The reason I think these questions are important is that your basis for deciding who can or cannot marry falls apart in these circumstances.  My position is that as long as government sanctions a certain relationship between two mutually consenting, competent adults, ANY two mutually consenting competent adults ought to be able to enter into that government sanctioned relationship.  You have tried to tell me where this is flawed, and I've given you examples that your position doesn't address.  This is why you continue to refuse to address those examples.  



beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 Gst-why do you "deflect" everyone's questions toward you but yet want answers to all your questions? Guessing this will go unanswered too or refer me to some thread 4 years ago

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:
 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:
I've answered your questions. You feel no need to address my questions of you. And I'm the one deflecting?  If a person is chromosomally 46 XY, but their body doesn't respond to testosterone and other androgens, they develop the body of a woman. Is that a man or is it a woman? Is it an example of "the design" not panning out, kinda like when a person is born gay?

By the way, thanks for using the condescending tone but not knowing when to use the word "principle". That made me laugh. 

spare, what you do not seem to understand is it is about gender. The gay community is not pushing for blonde haired blue eyed men to have the "right" to marry, it is about the gender.

So you can not try to deflect by posing one situation or another as it is irrelevant.

What genders can procreate together?

Your answer is who I think should be given the title of marriage.

gst, my questions are not irrelevant.  If you were to work on an answer to them, you might see that what you call gender is not as straightforward as you think it is.  A person born with mixed gonadal dysgenesis has both male and female features.  In years past, a gender would have been "assigned" to that person at a very young age, with the plan to raise them as either a girl or a boy, depending upon whichever their anatomy most resembled.  What then, might happen when one of these people raised as a boy realizes that "he" feels more like a woman?  What gender is "he"?

The reason I think these questions are important is that your basis for deciding who can or cannot marry falls apart in these circumstances.  My position is that as long as government sanctions a certain relationship between two mutually consenting, competent adults, ANY two mutually consenting competent adults ought to be able to enter into that government sanctioned relationship.  You have tried to tell me where this is flawed, and I've given you examples that your position doesn't address.  This is why you continue to refuse to address those examples.  


Once again spare, you wish to break it down to specific people with specific issues.

Answer the question espringers did.

Can two men procreate?

Can two women procreate?

Can a man and a woman procreate?

Now look to how marriage laws protecting tradition ideals are worded.

as to your emboldened statement, did you read what California has done?

Seems they have it figured out right?

Perhaps you wish ND to adopt the laws California has?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

beminoid31 Said:
 Gst-why do you "deflect" everyone's questions toward you but yet want answers to all your questions? Guessing this will go unanswered too or refer me to some thread 4 years ago

If you are referring to spares repeated lack of understanding a simple answer, I really can not help it if the answer given to the question does not suit him as an answer.

As to why the questions I pose go unanswered by some it is really not that hard to understand.

So bemi, would you like a law forced down your schools throat where some teenage boy can walk into the bathroom your daughter is using any time he wishes?

Would you feel that the gay community behind this laws passage "forced" this onto you?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Spare here is ND law.

14-03-01. What constitutes marriage - Spouse defined.

Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between one man and one woman to which the consent of the parties is essential. The marriage relation may be entered into, maintained, annulled, or dissolved only as provided by law. A spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Here in ND you have to "pick a side". You can't have "I don't know yet' printed on your drivers license. Perhaps we should change those rules as well and simply allow a ? where the gender box is.

Spare, would you like a teenage boy or several of them walking into your daughters bathroom at school while she is peeing because they claim to have not figured out their sexual orientation yet?

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Anything the land of fruits and nuts does, it would be well advised to do the opposite

Neat

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 Gst-what does gay marriage have to do with a boy entering a girls bathroom? Nothing!!! Where do you come up with these theories? Conspiracy theories is all you come up with. Might wanna visit Jamestown sometime soon, I heard they can help. To answer your ? Though yeah it's not right but pretty sure most of us in our younger years have done it. Yes I've pissed in a woman's bathroom before, oh well no ones feeling got hurt either

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

gst,

none of us want to see girls in guys restrooms and guys and girls restrooms.  but, guess what?  we didn't make that stupid rule change.  so, there is nothing we can do about it.  but, guess what else?  nobody is being discriminated against in that scenario.  there is a big difference whether you want to believe it or not.  

i think you need a refresher on how different laws are examined/analyzed by the courts.  we went thru this before a year or so ago.  but, law makers can get away with almost any stupid law they want as long as they have the authority and/or jurisdiction to address the issue they feel needs addressing.  the caveats to this are that they need legit reasons when those laws end up discriminating against certain classes of people.  the type of court review/analysis of discriminatory laws generally depends on the class of folks being discriminated against, the impact, the laws purpose, etc....  i think i suggested this in the past... but, you should google something like equal protection clause and constitutional standards of review.  that should help explain why there are legal challenges to things like bans on gay marriage and very little worthwhile challenges when a school decides it is going to have unisex bathrooms.  

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

beminoid31 Said:
 Gst-what does gay marriage have to do with a boy entering a girls bathroom? Nothing!!! Where do you come up with these theories? Conspiracy theories is all you come up with. Might wanna visit Jamestown sometime soon, I heard they can help. To answer your ? Though yeah it's not right but pretty sure most of us in our younger years have done it. Yes I've pissed in a woman's bathroom before, oh well no ones feeling got hurt either

You really can't be that stupid.

Are you really trying to equate a law pushed thru mandating the "right" of a boy to enter the girls bathroom at school because of a "confused sexual orientation" to your own juvenile sneaking into a women's bathroom to piss?

Please forgive me if I don't bother answering any more of your questions it that is the comparison you want to equate and you wish to dismiss how the creation of that law was gotten to. 

espringers Said:
gst,

none of us want to see girls in guys restrooms and guys and girls restrooms.  but, guess what?  we didn't make that stupid rule change.  so, there is nothing we can do about it.  but, guess what else?  nobody is being discriminated against in that scenario.  there is a big difference whether you want to believe it or not.  

i think you need a refresher on how different laws are examined/analyzed by the courts.  we went thru this before a year or so ago.  but, law makers can get away with almost any stupid law they want as long as they have the authority and/or jurisdiction to address the issue they feel needs addressing.  the caveats to this are that they need legit reasons when those laws end up discriminating against certain classes of people.  the type of court review/analysis of discriminatory laws generally depends on the class of folks being discriminated against, the impact, the laws purpose, etc....  i think i suggested this in the past... but, you should google something like equal protection clause and constitutional standards of review.  that should help explain why there are legal challenges to things like bans on gay marriage and very little worthwhile challenges when a school decides it is going to have unisex bathrooms.  

So espringer's if this came up for a vote at the school YOUR 14 year old daughter attended, how would YOU vote?

I noticed you avoided answering how would a judge rule in the state of New Hampshire where the LAW allows for gay marriage as well as adults marrying children as young as 13 if a gay man filed suit to marry a 13 year old boy?

I mean given your first emboldened statement above if heterosexual adults can marry 13 year old children with the courts permission in NH, and two men can marry as the law allows in NH, is it then not "discrimination" to rule that a adult male can not marry a male child in that state considering their current laws?

Under current New Hampshire law, couldn't that man use the "equal protection clause" as an argument the same as the gay community is in other states?

Now factor in one of Obama's appointed Federal judges who is gay himself and an activist, passed thru with no recourse by the Senate after they changed the rules and answer that question again if you would.

Read in that link who it was that pushed this bill allowing boys in girls bathrooms and vice versa thru the California legislature. The first openly gay Democrat teacher in California.

California didn't just wake up one morning and say gosh I think boys that have trouble finding their sexual orientation should be able to pee in the girls bathroom at school or vice versa.

I would really like to hear how you would vote if this came up at your daughter's school as a result of a gay person filing a lawsuit under the "equal protection clause" here in ND. 

Would you consider this a gay person "forcing" their views onto your family and school or would you welcome it with open arms in the name of "equal rights"?

"but, guess what?  we didn't make that stupid rule change.  so, there is nothing we can do about it.  but, guess what else?  nobody is being discriminated against in that scenario."

I mean given your first emboldened statement above, you would have to vote for it even if you thought it was "stupid"  to avoid "discriminating against anyone" wouldn't you???

I wonder what your wife would think about you voting to let boys come in her daughters bathroom?

I know what mine would say.

Indeed lets all emulate California for their progressive ideals and "tolerance".


To bad New York and their Democrat governor lack the same "tolerance" towards those that are pro life, pro assault weapons and anti gay extreme conservatives.  

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

It is starting to become more and more clear how Obama not only got elected, but re elected.

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 So I'm stupid for pissing in a woman's bathroom? Wow mr perfect I'm sorry. Your stupidity on your own conspiracies are making me dumber. I'll just save my fingers from typing anymore since you got nothing to do but argue about such conspiracies you have and how you're right and everyone else is wrong. I'm gonna go check my snares and hopefully I got a new horse for you to beat

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

no.  i wouldn't vote for it.  my fingers want to type something very mean spirited at the moment.  cause its very clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about when we delve into this issue.  but, will bite my tongue.  nobody would be successful challenging separate bathrooms under the equal protection clause.  i will leave it at that.  i know there are a few others that visit this site that might be able to explain things better to you.  but, they stay out of these conversations cause they know full well it is pointless.  maybe i should follow their lead.  

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

 

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎     🏃

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

701FishSlayer's picture
701FishSlayer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/5/09

 

 

 

 

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

beminoid31 Said:
 So I'm stupid for pissing in a woman's bathroom? Wow mr perfect I'm sorry. Your stupidity on your own conspiracies are making me dumber. I'll just save my fingers from typing anymore since you got nothing to do but argue about such conspiracies you have and how you're right and everyone else is wrong. I'm gonna go check my snares and hopefully I got a new horse for you to beat

Try to think just a bit.

the "stupid" term was used for you actually comparing the forcing of school kids to undergo students of the opposite sex mandated by gov to use the same bathrooms to your pissing in a women's bathroom.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:no.  i wouldn't vote for it.  my fingers want to type something very mean spirited at the moment.  cause its very clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about when we delve into this issue.  but, will bite my tongue.  nobody would be successful challenging separate bathrooms under the equal protection clause.  i will leave it at that.  i know there are a few others that visit this site that might be able to explain things better to you.  but, they stay out of these conversations cause they know full well it is pointless.  maybe i should follow their lead.  

espringers, it was merely used as an example, I am sure the gay community could find other means to challenge the discriminatory status quo of having girls and boys bathrooms in schools if they really thought it would get somewhere.  

After all, you adnmitted yourself having separate bathrooms in school is "discriminating" against someone.  

still ducking the New Hampshire judge ruling question?

espringers thanks for being honest in answering that.

"no.  i wouldn't vote for it. "

but what your answer states is that you would be willing to "discriminate" against someone because of your personal views.

Yet you and others condemn those that would keep gays from marrying for doing the same thing.

Your own words admit that you would engage in hypocritical acts given the stance you take on others views of gay marriage.

but, guess what else?  nobody is being discriminated against in that scenario."

I would be right there voting no with you espringers "discriminating " against those students that are sexually confused by not allowing them to use the opposite sexes bathrooms in school, so try not to be so hard on those that would "discriminate" on other issues.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I notice something very disturbing in this debate.  People bow to the supreme court.  Evidently they have forgot what this nation is about and are willing to give away their freedom.  The courts are to bow to the will of the people.  So also are the president and congress, but it's been a while since we have been a republic or even a democracy.  The activist judges are out of line, and our corrupt politicians are no better.  What is not reserved to the federal is given to the states, and nowhere in our constitution does the federal government have jurisdiction over the will of the people of each state when it comes to marriage. 

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 You really need to go back to Gov't 101.   The job of the courts is specifically to not bow to the will of the people.     It is to interpret the law and protect the minority from the will of the majority.   Do you think that the ruling declaring separate but equal unconstitutional was popular with the majority?  

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Candiru show me where it says marriage is a federal power through the supreme court.  If it isn't specified federal it is left to the states.  Yet federal judges are striking down state laws.  Yes, on the federal level their is to be a balance between the executive, judicial, and congress.  The judicial has been violating that long before Obama came into office and begin violating the executive powers.  We have only a shell left of the republic.

The supreme court is to interpret the constitution, not make new laws through activism.  They have found things in the 14th amendment that doesn't exist.  Go figure.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

i am almost done... i swear.  :)  plainsman, marriage ain't a federal power.  but, enforcing and interpreting the equal protection clause of the constitution is certainly a supreme court power.  i like how you guys love the best system of government on the face of the earth when it works in your favor like when the court tosses out stupid gun laws.  but, hate it when they decide against you on other issues.  is it a perfect system?  nope.  but, a good argument can be made that its one of the best ever devised in the history of humanity.  the supreme court certainly isn't perfect either.  but, like it or not, they are the supreme law of the land... hell, even the president (regardless of who he is) of the united states has to "bow" to them when they rule against him.  

gst, 99.999999999% of all public bathrooms in this country are male of female.  don't you wonder why nobody has ever tried to file a discrimination/equal protection lawsuit for that?  its cause its a stupid ass argument.  those students still get to piss someplace.  in fact, they get to pick one or the other.  i've never seen any "confused" person prosecuted for picking the wrong bathroom.  even if you could make a coherent argument for discrimination, the state or whoever is creating these discriminatory bathrooms would have a good argument for why they do it and the separate bathrooms clearly further that purpose.  

and pardon me for not answering your NH judge question.  you might have to repeat it.  it got lost amongst all of your other questions and hypotheticals.  


Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

gst Said:

espringers Said:
gst,

none of us want to see girls in guys restrooms and guys and girls restrooms.  but, guess what?  we didn't make that stupid rule change.  so, there is nothing we can do about it.  but, guess what else?  nobody is being discriminated against in that scenario.  there is a big difference whether you want to believe it or not.  

i think you need a refresher on how different laws are examined/analyzed by the courts.  we went thru this before a year or so ago.  but, law makers can get away with almost any stupid law they want as long as they have the authority and/or jurisdiction to address the issue they feel needs addressing.  the caveats to this are that they need legit reasons when those laws end up discriminating against certain classes of people.  the type of court review/analysis of discriminatory laws generally depends on the class of folks being discriminated against, the impact, the laws purpose, etc....  i think i suggested this in the past... but, you should google something like equal protection clause and constitutional standards of review.  that should help explain why there are legal challenges to things like bans on gay marriage and very little worthwhile challenges when a school decides it is going to have unisex bathrooms.  

So espringer's if this came up for a vote at the school YOUR 14 year old daughter attended, how would YOU vote?

I noticed you avoided answering how would a judge rule in the state of New Hampshire where the LAW allows for gay marriage as well as adults marrying children as young as 13 if a gay man filed suit to marry a 13 year old boy?

I mean given your first emboldened statement above if heterosexual adults can marry 13 year old children with the courts permission in NH, and two men can marry as the law allows in NH, is it then not "discrimination" to rule that a adult male can not marry a male child in that state considering their current laws?

Under current New Hampshire law, couldn't that man use the "equal protection clause" as an argument the same as the gay community is in other states?

Now factor in one of Obama's appointed Federal judges who is gay himself and an activist, passed thru with no recourse by the Senate after they changed the rules and answer that question again if you would.

Once again for the third time espringers the question is italicized, emboldened and underlined as well as enlarged  above. I think you should see it this time.  Now whether it is under the "equal protection clause" or not the suit is filed, your legal expertise can surely determine if that would be where the it would be brought forth or thru some other means.

The crux of the question is where we may end up as our "morals change" and the legal ramifications of those "changing morals.

You are seemingly going down a path I am not sure really is relevant here with the legal aspect of the boys and girls bathroom deal. I'm not sure you quite understand why it was brought into the discussion.

It really doesn't matter what legal means is used to put it in place or to a position people are voting on it as it pertains to this discussion, it is about how you would vote on it that matters to our dialogue.

As well perhaps as an example of how an agenda is being pushed onto others and affecting their lives despite some claims it is not . 

Espringers, you admitted that even though allowing boys to use the girls bathroom would remove any "discrimination" you would vote against it.

So in essence you admittedly have no problem "discriminating" against a boy that would like to be able to use your daughters girls bathroom at school due to his confusion over his sexuality.

Like I said, I am right there with you in "discriminating" against these poor confused students.

But what I am wondering is how do you decide where to draw the line over who you choose to "discriminate" against while condemning others for the line they draw?

I mean we all do it. I draw a line regarding views  someone else may have all the time.
We are all a bit hypocritical in this unless you are truly "tolerant" to anything.

So what is being suggested by comments about men marrying children, boys and girls bathrooms ect..... is before you throw your stone regarding other people's views of gay marriage, make sure you are standing outside of your own glass house.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

"We the people are the rightful master of both Congress and the Courts.

Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution."
 
Abraham Lincoln

Pages