...And I added how other religious practices are discriminated against by the government as well. What makes the Mormon's religious practices any more legitimate than the Vodoo's religious practices, for instance? Under the US constitution they are both the same. But even still, straight Mormons have the option to marry a person they fall in love with. And if they fall for another, well, they'll have to decide which one they want more according to our laws. But the Mormon can still benefit from the rights given to them if they marry a person they can actually have sex with, gays on the other hand, don't have a choice.
Carrie Prejean meltdown on Larry King
- Thread starter pool_hustler
- Start date
...And I added how other religious practices are discriminated against by the government as well. What makes the Mormon's religious practices any more legitimate than the Vodoo's religious practices, for instance? Under the US constitution they are both the same. But even still, straight Mormons have the option to marry a person they fall in love with. And if they fall for another, well, they'll have to decide which one they want more according to our laws. But the Mormon can still benefit from the rights given to them if they marry a person they can actually have sex with, gays on the other hand, don't have a choice.
Stay on topic! Carrie Prejean used the word"meeted" instead of met.
The question was you're equating polygamy as a religious practice with human and/or animal sacrifice while dismissing the (very real) notion and juxtaposition of those who would marry animals or children if they could with gay marriage.
No shit! What do you think was my original point in raising the polygamy argument in the first place???????????????????????????????????????
Really! Don't put words in my mouth pls. I only talked about animals being killed as a religious practice in a very well-established religion. And under our constitution, all religions are supposed to be equal, right? So what in your mind makes one religious practice any more legitimate than another? If the government sanctions poligamy, because it is a a religious practice, what is to stop it from sactioning other marriage arrangements that are religious in nature? If anything, the slippery slope pandora's box goes more with what you brought up, religous poligamy, than with the secular case for gay marriage.But then again, I also stated that those same arguments were used when there was the debate about interracial marriage in this country. But obviously you choose to dismiss it because it doesn't suit your great deal of support for mescegenation, something the vast majority of Americans disagreed in the past.
This is getting silly now, picking things out of context, while dismissing everything else that was said. I further explained about the fact that straight mormons can still enjoy the benefits that come with being married to a person they can actually have sex with and be in love with, which is not the case for gays.
In the case of paedophilia and bestiality, the state has a legitimate interest in banning such marriages. To protect kids from abuse (rape), and c'mon, we all know animals can't agree to marriage. What is your logic? That you would could even think about that as a valid notion would be laughable if it wasn't a pathetic case of fear-mongering.
Then again, if you have to argue that gay marriage might be wrong, because it might lead to X and Y. It becomes pretty obvious you don't have a case against gay marriage itself. Which is not a good enough reason to deny them equality under secular law. Also, since you are not so fond to studying history it seems, it might help looking at the Netherlands, for example. After nearly a decade of same sex marriage being allowed, the country doesn't find marrying kids or animals any more acceptable than they did before SS marriage was allowed.
This thread came out different.
But then again, I also stated that those same arguments were used when there was the debate about interracial marriage in this country. But obviously you choose to dismiss it because it doesn't suit your great deal of support for mescegenation, something the vast majority of Americans disagreed in the past.
This is getting silly now, picking things out of context, while dismissing everything else that was said. I further explained about the fact that straight mormons can still enjoy the benefits that come with being married to a person they can actually have sex with and be in love with, which is not the case for gays.
In the case of paedophilia and bestiality, the state has a legitimate interest in banning such marriages. To protect kids from abuse (rape), and c'mon, we all know animals can't agree to marriage. What is your logic? That you would could even think about that as a valid notion would be laughable if it wasn't a pathetic case of fear-mongering.
Then again, if you have to argue that gay marriage might be wrong, because it might lead to X and Y. It becomes pretty obvious you don't have a case against gay marriage itself. Which is not a good enough reason to deny them equality under secular law. Also, since you are not so fond to studying history it seems, it might help looking at the Netherlands, for example. After nearly a decade of same sex marriage being allowed, the country doesn't find marrying kids or animals any more acceptable than they did before SS marriage was allowed.
Anyone have a merry-go-round emoticon?:spin::turnturn:
BTW, where did you read (as oppose to assume based on what you think you read me saying) that I have a "great deal of support for mescegenation (sic)"???
MILF Man
milf n' cookies
Attacking the interviewer! Don't make me laugh. She said in a very calm manor that she would not answer any questions regarding to the topic she was asked about. Taking her microphone off because she felt the questioning became inappropriate, is not attacking an interviewer or a meltdown.
If anything, the interviewer was the attacker.
Psst.....accusing or admonishing your interviewer of being "inappropriate" is an attack. It may not rise to the level of punching them but it is nonetheless an attack.
An "attack" is anything that requires or lends itself to a defense. I imagine King would defend his questioning as not being "inappropriate".
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
I agree Milf but thats how many view it, or twist it.
Today whats good is bad and whats bad is good.
Another words sneaky devious behaviour is praised and mature dignified behaviour is denounced.
Welcome to 2009 USA
And Actually milfman , she took off the mic as soon as he said lets take a call.
that very second.
According to her, her agent and the show agreed on, no calls.
again Larry Zeigler being a sneaky parasite disregarded that.
He knew what he was doing, trying to set her up, and she didnt fall for it.
And considering the caller began asking a setup question, basically the same question the mentally disturbed (but praised) judge asked her in the pageant, I see why she wouldn't want to take calls.
He said well before the call came in that they would be taking calls in a moment. Not that I believe a woman who's been shown to lie repeatedly and by many accounts has attempting to enlist others in her lies for a minute. But assuming what she and her agent claims is true with respect to the calls, why didn't she object when King mentioned taking calls well ahead of time???
It's obvious someone was advising her off camera to try and end the interview
likely because she wasn't acquitting herself well again and possibly about to produce another series of lies.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Mega you are the living end.
An attack ?
See this is a perfect example of how you and me are different.
I see asking someone the same question four times in a row as a sort of attack, and the person being asked saying "please stop,youre being inappropriate" as a very polite, normal way of responding.
I would have said, ask me that question one more time and i'll .nevermind
See by your train of thought if a girl is being raped and she says "stop, youre being inappropriate"" that she is attacking the rapist.
Thats a more extreme example but the same point.
edit: lots of hypothetics and assumptions in that last post.
If all that is true...I would of done the same thing!:2 cents:
If Larry had a problem with that, he should of not have her on his show.
Although I find those accusations way too unethical to be believable, but I guess it could be true.
Here's the anatomy of an "attack". Some lodges a statement against you for which you may then have to defend yourself against. A question can almost never be an attack...it's really an opportunity for you to go on the offense and assert and affirmative response.
If he accused her of lying in a statement that would be an "attack". Just like if he had accused her of being "inappropriate" in any respect....that would also be an "attack".
As it stands she's the only person to accuse anyone of anything untoward in this situation...ergo...she's the only one who "attacked".
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Mega have you ever recieved anal sex?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Mega have you ever been fucked in the ass?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Mega has a penis ever penetrated your anus?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Mega have you ever been a hitchhiker on the hershey highway?
See my point?
I'm being rude, an asshole.
The questions not important, its the fact that I keep asking.
If you tell me I'm being inappropriate I deserve it.
See my point?
I'm being rude, an asshole.
The questions not important, its the fact that I keep asking.
If you tell me I'm being inappropriate I deserve it.
No I don't see you're point. There is no basis for you to ask that question of me. Unlike King's question of Prejean.
Even as such...it's just a question. Now, if you accused me in error or maliciously of something offensive to me..then that's an attack.
If I further accuse you of being "inappropriate" because of those questions or accusations...I could be completely within reason for doing so and it STILL be an "attack" on you.
Similar threads
- Locked
