Rand Paul says that humans will marry non humans without DOM

Lore · Post by **Lore** » 06-29-2013 04:28 AM

I, personally, don't care if gays marry. I consider it none of my business what they do in their bedrooms. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with each other in the privacy of their bedrooms.

I don't consider homosexuality catching so I am not threatened by any of this. It is not my issue and I tip to the side of acceptance but I also don't consider it my fight. I did vote against Proposition 8 here in California.

Oh, and good for Canada for being so much more progressive than the US. Somebody has to lead the way.

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 06-29-2013 07:37 AM

Raggedyann wrote: I don't think we have to worry that the world is going to reduce its population due to gov't conspiracies. Hey, they are starving and dying by the millions "over there", for lack of resources. What more could we ask for? (being facetious).

I recall when I was told to clean my plate because kids were starving in China. Now I'm told to send my money to China because it's good for the U.S. economy.

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 06-29-2013 07:57 AM

Lore wrote: People always claim there are going to be dire consequences to any bill they don't want to see passed, rarely with good reason. Usually these dire consequences never come to pass, and these types of claims are without merit.

But in those rare times, some of those passed bills have had far reaching consequences. One need only look at what legislation has done for the gold standard. Or, in the broadcast business, a series of bills is setting up free TV and radio to be a thing of the past. Of course these bills are modeled and pushed by the people who have the most to get out of making people pay.

Badly written, open ended bills often exceed areas of which they were intended. One need only think of the bill written to tax your phone service to help pay for the Spanish-American War. Although paid off in the 40s (officially), that bill remained on the books and funneled money from every payment we made to someone, somewhere.

And for you folks who like to talk about FEMA camps etc, look how the 2011 bill, S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, grew legs and evolved and spawned into other bills. As one friend put it, bills are like weeds. Once one is in your garden, more pop up.

I'm with most of you that I can care less about gays cohabitation, what they do, etc. I have a lot of gay friends in the business and on personal level. Truth be known, I don't care if some hilljack from the mountains marries his dog. What I do object to is when we have to make laws which grant powers to people in areas where we would never have to grant them power.

In other words, had someone not written a law prohibiting a gay partner from gaining access to their spouse's assets, then we would not have to write another law which reverses the first law and opens the door to additional abuses.

This nation doesn't need more laws. It needs more damn common sense.

__________________________________________

Edit:

Hypothetically ... IF Rand Paul is right, and if my concerns are valid, personal views aside, do you have any problem with relaxing the laws covering humans and animals or adults and children? If it is a concern, on what legal or moral ground can you base your argument?

Cherry Kelly · Post by **Cherry Kelly** » 06-29-2013 11:31 AM

The mention of bc pills -- don't always work either. You can be on the pill and still get pregnant. I know that for a fact...

Now I could care less if my gay and lesbian friends have a legal union...good! It gives them the rights to the things I listed before. My only objection is to the utilization of the term "marriage". Now thinking further - who is the husband and who is the wife? Or are those two terms also going to be changed and lost to new terminology?

I talked to a g/f who has been with her female partner for over 15 years. Both have children, one from her ex and other through a sperm bank. (Only problem was sperm bank just a number and lacks any medical history - background for any known medical problems.) What they did was to put their house in a joint ownership - legally - as well as their bank accounts and their cars. So they are covered for that much. They would like more - insurances, taxes, etc. For them I wish it would happen.

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 06-29-2013 12:25 PM

And I guess that's my point, Cherry. I don't see why insurances, taxes, ownership to surviving spouse, and all that stuff can not be made legal.

It seems to me the people are not preventing it. At least myself or any friends I know could care less how gays divide up their assets/estate.

I do see more than a few regulations (laws) that prohibit it, and if legislators really cared about the people they represent they would simply take those laws off the books.

There! Problem solved.

Riddick · Post by **Riddick** » 06-29-2013 12:53 PM

voguy wrote: This nation doesn't need more laws. It needs more damn common sense.

Along with common sense, how about priorities?

While the public debate is turned toward the SCOTUS decisions and their possible ramifications for future societal sexual norms, meanwhile, back at the surveillance state ranch, a posse is planning to snatch Snowdon at the earliest opportunity and haul him in for trial. Once he's made an example of, it'll be back to business as usual.

Basic rights of Americans are being trampled into the ground right under their noses. With privacy a thing of the past, and government as the ultimate voyeur it's not an issue of nothing to hide, it's whether you're doing anything they want to see -

Some folks like kids, others sheep, even corpses - The fetish for deviants in DC? THEY like to watch.

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 06-29-2013 01:38 PM

I agree, Riddick. I notice so many things where the priorities are out of whack. I want so much to walk up behind our congressman and do what Mr. Incorvia would do to his kids, smack them on the back of their head while saying in that coarse Italian accent, "What are ya, f----g stupid? You know better!!"

Hmmm... maybe we just need to hire a bunch of wise guys to deal with the problem.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 06-29-2013 01:43 PM

voguy wrote: I recall when I was told to clean my plate because kids were starving in China. Now I'm told to send my money to China because it's good for the U.S. economy.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 06-29-2013 01:49 PM

Riddick wrote: Some folks like kids, others sheep, even corpses - The fetish for deviants in DC? THEY like to watch.

Riddick · Post by **Riddick** » 06-29-2013 01:59 PM

voguy wrote: I agree, Riddick. I notice so many things where the priorities are out of whack. I want so much to walk up behind our congressman and do what Mr. Incorvia would do to his kids, smack them on the back of their head while saying in that coarse Italian accent, "What are ya, f----g stupid? You know better!!"

Hmmm... maybe we just need to hire a bunch of wise guys to deal with the problem.

Wise guys could make a difference... And it's not like we don't already have criminals running the show eh? -

It'd be nice to have politicians who had a code of ethics and a sense of honor. AND actually abided by them.

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 06-29-2013 02:02 PM

Riddick wrote: It'd be nice to have politicians who had a code of ethics and a sense of honor. AND actually abided by them.

Dude... this is the Fantastic Forum. Not the Fantasy Forum.

Ethics and honesty are not traits you find in these poor bastards.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » 06-29-2013 02:47 PM

voguy wrote: Dude... this is the Fantastic Forum. Not the Fantasy Forum.

Ethics and honesty are not traits you find in these poor bastards.

I believe it is in part duet our moral decline - no one even thinks about conflicts of interest anymore - we are like one he big Amoeba - completely incestuous.

Riddick · Post by **Riddick** » 06-29-2013 03:47 PM

voguy wrote: Dude... this is the Fantastic Forum. Not the Fantasy Forum.

Ethics and honesty are not traits you find in these poor bastards.

Sad how dishonesty and unethical behavior defines all too many of them - Then again, if it's working for them, why change? At that rate it'd be foolish to underestimate the ignorance of the American electorate -

So much as that's what we've got, all too often victory goes to those who appeal to the lowest common denomniator... and THEN the question for the country collectively is, just HOW low can we go?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » 06-29-2013 03:49 PM

Riddick wrote: Sad how dishonesty and unethical behavior defines all too many of them - Then again, if it's working for them, why change? At that rate it'd be foolish to underestimate the ignorance of the American electorate -

So much as that's what we've got, all too often victory goes to those who appeal to the lowest common denomniator... and THEN the question for the country collectively is, just HOW low can we go?

It's the money and the perks and loop holes and NO chance of convicted for insider trading, not paying your taxes or whatever, which drives these Sociopaths in droves and all those folks who railed against Romney and his wealth have NO problem with these slugs living off of us.

All the perks and money and retirement and extreme benefits aside at the MOST they work maybe two days a week.

If OWS was really enlightened that is where they would have started.

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 06-29-2013 06:12 PM

I read, many, many years ago, a book which spoke to events in history and battles with civil and social issues. It was written my two theologians, and I wish for the life of me I could remember the title. It was good obscure reading.

The one thing I got out of it was how history repeats its self by the virtue that humans have a trait to exploit an opportunity, or justify wrong when a reward is apparent. The writer(s) build the case for the evil started with Adam and Eve. If you believe this or not is of no consequence in the scope of history, and only serves to explain how things go terribly wrong.

But the whole thing with both the United States, and Canadian governments is wildly similar to what they wrote about Rome as well as the ruling of King Charles II and King James I of England's government over the people. The end to which a governing body will go to "control" a population can be seen in history with what is happening in Syria, and back into the 1400s with the Anasazi civilization in the American Southwest.

You probably could argue that many of the laws and decisions made by those in legislature and executive branches of (US) government. Wasn't it a staffer who mentioned that the Epicyte Gene would not be that bad in the scope of limiting populations and "removing problems". And I believe one member of congress (perhaps Barney Frank in one of his "moments") mentioned that the gay population is not responsible for the sins of over-population.

So one could really rationalize that some of the pushing and prodding of these social engineering laws are perhaps in some way a thought of a way to bring forth a more ideal nation. Who knows?

For now, my belief is that anyone in one of the houses is much the same as a ruling man in Rome, subject to the same mood swings and governing without the will of the people. And I also think that many laws created are simply to stroke someone or a group into parting with cash. It sure is not the majority which is calling the shots.