Rand Paul says that humans will marry non humans without DOM

kbot · Post by **kbot** » 06-28-2013 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Riddick After Nudists, the Necrophiliacs are next in line for normalization...somebody's gotta do it.

Aw man..... you had to go there, didn'tcha??????? That's just wrong......

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 06-28-2013 04:44 PM

Well, again, let's separate the two issues. One is the fairness of letting a significant other in a relationship have all the legal opportunity as a wife or husband of their deceased partner. I don't understand why this part of the law is not changed. Frankly, it's a no-brainer.

The other side is the method in which we came to the Senate vote, and the wording of the law.

I'm not proud to say that Ohio has one of the highest ratios of human trafficking. I75 is a freeway of drugs and kids. There are two types of peds that we run into. The ones who find willing participants, (albeit gullible), and those in the slave trade. Either way, there will be moves to legitimize or somehow lower the age of consent, using some of the wording in the laws passed.

Never underestimate the criminal mind, professionally or amateurish, to find ways to subvert the system in their favor.

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 06-28-2013 04:45 PM

@Riddick: I don't worry about the nudists where I'm thinking of moving. The deer-flies will make their lifestyle a living hell.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » 06-28-2013 06:11 PM

We aren't done with this by a long shot.

I do marvel at Bill's acceptance - it was his law originally and when it was, it served him well but not now with 2016 upon us.

Doka · Post by **Doka** » 06-28-2013 07:06 PM

I have another theory on these developments. It is called "Eugenics". If you will notice the current trend is acceptance and a push for any life style that will not likely produce offspring in of itself. Traditional marriage is being re-written as to be almost frowned upon & being pushed from favor. Some Women screaming that the right to abortion at one day to 9 months is a "must right". The "morning after pill" given to any child that can say "morning after pill" please. Just some food for thought. What do you all think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-
whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

http://www.cato.org/publications/speech ... icy-ethics

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 06-28-2013 07:30 PM

Doka wrote: I have another theory on these developments. It is called "Eugenics". If you will notice the current trend is acceptance and a push for any life style that will not likely produce offspring in of itself. Traditional marriage is being re-written as to be almost frowned upon & being pushed from favor. Some Women screaming that the right to abortion at one day to 9 months is a "must right". The "morning after pill" given to any child that can say "morning after pill" please. Just some food for thought. What do you all think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-
whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

http://www.cato.org/publications/speech ... icy-ethics

The part of Perry's law that prohibits abortion after 20 wks is a good thing for obvious reasons. Making abortions impossible to obtain at all is wrong.

I wish the morning after pill had been available to me in 1964. I wouldn't have ended up in a rotten marriage that made life a helluva more difficult to navigate through what should have been the best years of my life. Kids are having sex at a much younger age now, so do we bury our heads in the sand and let them ruin their lives like some of us did during the days when there was no BC pill of any sort? Lectures on abstinence did not work in my day, so why would anybody think it would work now? Prevention is the intelligent option.

Marriage would be not my cup of tea ever again and also not the choice for lots of people nowadays. But there is still freedom of choice, so I don't see how marriage is out of favor. Gay people can't procreate as heterosexual people do. But that was the case before the Supreme Court overruled DOMA.

When young people in my family get married, as most of them have, I celebrate with them and wish them well. Then I head for the free food and booze.

Doka · Post by **Doka** » 06-28-2013 07:39 PM

I am not really saying it is a good thing or bad thing, for myself I'm out of the "loop" sort of speak. What I am saying is, I get the feeling that TPTB are "herding" the populace in a certain direction.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 06-28-2013 07:45 PM

Doka wrote: I am not really saying it is a good thing or bad thing, for myself I'm out of the "loop" sort of speak. What I am saying is, I get the feeling that TPTB are "herding" the populace in a certain direction.

Oh no doubt we are being herded in many ways that are out of our control. However, I do believe that some social revolutions are seeded from the grass roots, and not always from on high.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » 06-28-2013 08:07 PM

Doka wrote: I am not really saying it is a good thing or bad thing, for myself I'm out of the "loop" sort of speak. What I am saying is, I get the feeling that TPTB are "herding" the populace in a certain direction.

Being herded is correct.

Doka · Post by **Doka** » 06-28-2013 08:13 PM

You are probably right Ra, I have been reading about The Great Population Explosion. Probably went to my head.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » 06-28-2013 08:13 PM

Doka wrote: I have another theory on these developments. It is called "Eugenics". If you will notice the current trend is acceptance and a push for any life style that will not likely produce offspring in of itself. Traditional marriage is being re-written as to be almost frowned upon & being pushed from favor. Some Women screaming that the right to abortion at one day to 9 months is a "must right". The "morning after pill" given to any child that can say "morning after pill" please. Just some food for thought. What do you all think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-
whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

http://www.cato.org/publications/speech ... icy-ethics

Not out in left field at all.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 06-28-2013 09:31 PM

Doka wrote: You are probably right Ra, I have been reading about The Great Population Explosion. Probably went to my head.

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).

Lore · Post by **Lore** » 06-29-2013 02:27 AM

Cherry Kelly wrote: YES, the majority of people object to the term "marriage" being compromised from its origin of man to woman. They also believe that the unions, partnerships or male to male, female to female - should have legal rights. Such legal rights as inheritance, taxes, insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc.

The gov't should be kept out of the "marriage" bit - but with this administration - the Bill of Rights has been violated in many other ways.

What will happen next is anyone's guess. Yes next we will hear of other demands. Not just oh marriage to animals or objects, but multiple people, etc.

who knows?

Maybe we should be free to make up our own minds about what we want in our private lives as far as sex partners are concerned.

I think the age of consent should never be lowered for minors. We need to protect children from making bad decisions that they have no idea can affect them for the rest of their lives.

However, not that I am in favor of polygamy, I don't necessarily think that it is any of my business if consenting adults want an arrangement of this type in their lives.

Oh, and RA here in the states most common law statutes have been cast aside as people live together, break up, find others to live with, break up, etc.

While assets can become mingled (although not always) over the years in live in situations perks that come with marriage such as health insurance from a spouse, access to a retirement fund, alimony, medical decisions, etc., does not exist with live in situations. In some cases a domestic partner can get health insurance, this depends on the insurance itself and a lot of times rests with the package the employer purchases from the insurance company.

I don't know what Obama Care says about live-in non married domestic partner situations as far as one person working and the other staying at home. Not sure how Obama Care works at all really.

Lore · Post by **Lore** » 06-29-2013 03:07 AM

This idea that allowing gays to marry will have severe consequences opening the door to other things is just a constant argument that is made whenever a controversial bill is proposed or passed or an unpopular legal decision is made.

Dire predictions about opening the doors for runaway slippery slopes and unsavory results were also made when the Supreme Court of the US stuck down the Anti-miscegenation laws that existed in most or all of the states in 1967. Anti-miscegenation laws were the laws against black/white interracial marriages and having interracial sex.

Somehow the world didn't go to hell because interracial marriage was allowed in the U.S. The world may have gone to hell anyway but not because some law was struck down so people became free to fall in love with whomever they wanted to fall in love with and marry their loves without government interference in their love lives if it was interracial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce ... ted_States

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.

By the way there are those who are going to try to lower the age of consent for sex with minors whether or not gay marriage is considered legal. In fact, I would put forth my opinion that allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with bolstering nambla's position on legalizing sex with children. The people in this [sick, disgusting] organization will utilize any argument they can to try to get their agenda passed. Of course they are going to try to utilize legal acceptance of gay marriage to attempt to pass their agenda, but the fact is even without this current ruling they are going to push their agenda anyway.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 06-29-2013 03:37 AM

Lore wrote: This idea that allowing gays to marry will have severe consequences opening the door to other things is just a constant argument that is made whenever a controversial bill is proposed or passed or an unpopular legal decision is made.

According to the polls, this legal decision is not that unpopular. The majority of Americans support Gay marriage. I would hazard a pretty good guess that if Americans were ever polled regarding pedophilia becoming legal, an overwhelming majority would not support it under any circumstances from now til the cows come home.

Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for 8 yrs. The issues of pedophilia, sex with animals or polygamy, have never been raised as a possibility for legalization.

"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." Those unforgettable words made famous by Pierre Trudeau in 1967 caused a tidal wave of controversy that rippled across the entire nation. Trudeau's Omnibus Bill brought issues like abortion, homosexuality and divorce law to the forefront for the first time, changing the political and social landscape in Canada forever.

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/p ... ation.html

BTW, great posts Lore