0
kallend

We're all going to die!

Recommended Posts

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-talk-huppke-gay-marriage-abortions-20150422-story.html

The U.S. Supreme Court will finally hear arguments on same-sex marriage next week, and that can mean only one thing: We're all going to die.

One amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court includes an entire section called: "God's Judgment on the Nation."

It notes that "homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is 'defiled,' the people have been cast out of their homes."


In another amicus brief:

this one filed by "100 scholars of marriage" and explained by one of those scholars, attorney Gene Schaerr, in a recent post on The Heritage Foundation's news website.

The brief claims that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to "nearly 900,000 more abortions" over the next 30 years. Schaerr writes in his post that same-sex marriage legalization leads to reduced opposite-sex marriage rates, which translate into "an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women."

As a public service, I've used my extensive investigative reporting skills to assemble additional arguments against same-sex marriage legalization. Opponents should consider these free fodder, while supporters should read through them to stretch their brains out for any future leaps of logic.

1) If gay marriage is legalized, we will all die in our cars.


Evidence: Using data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, I built a database showing the number of motor vehicle-related deaths per state. Comparing that to data showing which states have legalized same-sex marriage, I found a shocking truth: The total number of fatal car crashes in the more than 30 states that allow gay marriage is much higher than the number of road deaths in the dozen or so states where same-sex marriage is still prohibited.

Conclusion: Math is irrelevant. Gay marriage is deadly.

2) If gay marriage is legalized, we will all become obese.

Evidence: I spent minutes Googling "which states eat the most ice cream" and found that nine of the top 10 ice cream-consuming states are ones that allow gay and lesbian people to marry. Texas is the one exception — they probably eat a lot of ice cream because it's hot there, not because they are forced to by gay married people.

Conclusion: Letting gay and lesbian people marry is demonstrably unhealthy.


etc.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-talk-huppke-gay-marriage-abortions-20150422-story.html

The U.S. Supreme Court will finally hear arguments on same-sex marriage next week, and that can mean only one thing: We're all going to die.

One amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court includes an entire section called: "God's Judgment on the Nation."

It notes that "homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is 'defiled,' the people have been cast out of their homes."


In another amicus brief:

this one filed by "100 scholars of marriage" and explained by one of those scholars, attorney Gene Schaerr, in a recent post on The Heritage Foundation's news website.

The brief claims that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to "nearly 900,000 more abortions" over the next 30 years. Schaerr writes in his post that same-sex marriage legalization leads to reduced opposite-sex marriage rates, which translate into "an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women."

As a public service, I've used my extensive investigative reporting skills to assemble additional arguments against same-sex marriage legalization. Opponents should consider these free fodder, while supporters should read through them to stretch their brains out for any future leaps of logic.

1) If gay marriage is legalized, we will all die in our cars.


Evidence: Using data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, I built a database showing the number of motor vehicle-related deaths per state. Comparing that to data showing which states have legalized same-sex marriage, I found a shocking truth: The total number of fatal car crashes in the more than 30 states that allow gay marriage is much higher than the number of road deaths in the dozen or so states where same-sex marriage is still prohibited.

Conclusion: Math is irrelevant. Gay marriage is deadly.

2) If gay marriage is legalized, we will all become obese.

Evidence: I spent minutes Googling "which states eat the most ice cream" and found that nine of the top 10 ice cream-consuming states are ones that allow gay and lesbian people to marry. Texas is the one exception — they probably eat a lot of ice cream because it's hot there, not because they are forced to by gay married people.

Conclusion: Letting gay and lesbian people marry is demonstrably unhealthy.


etc.



1) Like it or not, Logic is Math.

2) There is no Math requirement per se for either Law School of the Bar. It us thus no surprise that most attorneys are mathematically, and thus logically, illiterate.

3) The typical legal case is an endless string of logical fallacies, formal and informal. The side that prevails is often the one with the most compelling fallacious argument (e.g., Argumentum ad Miseracordium vs. Arcumentum ad Baculum).

4)) The Supreme Court is subject to the same rules as is any other part of Government; the scum rises to the top.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather find out if the observations have some chain of correlation and if it's fascinating or trivial.

1 - People should be able to pair up any way they choose.

2 - Government shouldn't be involved in those choices in any way other than one - to help ensure that people leave each other alone to make those choices as individuals. No benefits or penalties for either person vs as if they were living single.

Frankly, I'd just as much think that the government shouldn't even get to know if two people are married or not - that's how out of marriage I think government should be - it's none of the gov's business who I partner with, what I own, what i legally do.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm..

Yes. We are all going to die.

Unless science takes some great leaps forward (and it very well may), in 125 years, everyone currently on the planet will be...

Dead.

As a friend of mine says -

Don't take life too seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your attempt at humor falls only slightly lower then your attempts at intellectualism.

But don't quit, quitters never win, well except in the liberal world, then your still a winner so yeah go ahead and quit and be a winner! :)

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-talk-huppke-gay-marriage-abortions-20150422-story.html

The U.S. Supreme Court will finally hear arguments on same-sex marriage next week, and that can mean only one thing: We're all going to die.

One amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court includes an entire section called: "God's Judgment on the Nation."

It notes that "homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is 'defiled,' the people have been cast out of their homes."


In another amicus brief:

this one filed by "100 scholars of marriage" and explained by one of those scholars, attorney Gene Schaerr, in a recent post on The Heritage Foundation's news website.

The brief claims that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to "nearly 900,000 more abortions" over the next 30 years. Schaerr writes in his post that same-sex marriage legalization leads to reduced opposite-sex marriage rates, which translate into "an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women."

As a public service, I've used my extensive investigative reporting skills to assemble additional arguments against same-sex marriage legalization. Opponents should consider these free fodder, while supporters should read through them to stretch their brains out for any future leaps of logic.

1) If gay marriage is legalized, we will all die in our cars.


Evidence: Using data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, I built a database showing the number of motor vehicle-related deaths per state. Comparing that to data showing which states have legalized same-sex marriage, I found a shocking truth: The total number of fatal car crashes in the more than 30 states that allow gay marriage is much higher than the number of road deaths in the dozen or so states where same-sex marriage is still prohibited.

Conclusion: Math is irrelevant. Gay marriage is deadly.

2) If gay marriage is legalized, we will all become obese.

Evidence: I spent minutes Googling "which states eat the most ice cream" and found that nine of the top 10 ice cream-consuming states are ones that allow gay and lesbian people to marry. Texas is the one exception — they probably eat a lot of ice cream because it's hot there, not because they are forced to by gay married people.

Conclusion: Letting gay and lesbian people marry is demonstrably unhealthy.


etc.



Meh, wgaf?

I thought this was yet another global warming thread.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
catfishhunter

Your attempt at humor falls only slightly lower then your attempts at intellectualism.



But I can spell.:P

I doubt you'd recognize intellectual discourse if it stood on its hind legs and bit you on the nose.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
winsor

***www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-talk-huppke-gay-marriage-abortions-20150422-story.html

The U.S. Supreme Court will finally hear arguments on same-sex marriage next week, and that can mean only one thing: We're all going to die.

One amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court includes an entire section called: "God's Judgment on the Nation."

It notes that "homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is 'defiled,' the people have been cast out of their homes."


In another amicus brief:

this one filed by "100 scholars of marriage" and explained by one of those scholars, attorney Gene Schaerr, in a recent post on The Heritage Foundation's news website.

The brief claims that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to "nearly 900,000 more abortions" over the next 30 years. Schaerr writes in his post that same-sex marriage legalization leads to reduced opposite-sex marriage rates, which translate into "an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women."

As a public service, I've used my extensive investigative reporting skills to assemble additional arguments against same-sex marriage legalization. Opponents should consider these free fodder, while supporters should read through them to stretch their brains out for any future leaps of logic.

1) If gay marriage is legalized, we will all die in our cars.


Evidence: Using data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, I built a database showing the number of motor vehicle-related deaths per state. Comparing that to data showing which states have legalized same-sex marriage, I found a shocking truth: The total number of fatal car crashes in the more than 30 states that allow gay marriage is much higher than the number of road deaths in the dozen or so states where same-sex marriage is still prohibited.

Conclusion: Math is irrelevant. Gay marriage is deadly.

2) If gay marriage is legalized, we will all become obese.

Evidence: I spent minutes Googling "which states eat the most ice cream" and found that nine of the top 10 ice cream-consuming states are ones that allow gay and lesbian people to marry. Texas is the one exception — they probably eat a lot of ice cream because it's hot there, not because they are forced to by gay married people.

Conclusion: Letting gay and lesbian people marry is demonstrably unhealthy.


etc.



1) Like it or not, Logic is Math.

2) There is no Math requirement per se for either Law School of the Bar. It us thus no surprise that most attorneys are mathematically, and thus logically, illiterate.

3) The typical legal case is an endless string of logical fallacies, formal and informal. The side that prevails is often the one with the most compelling fallacious argument (e.g., Argumentum ad Miseracordium vs. Arcumentum ad Baculum).

4)) The Supreme Court is subject to the same rules as is any other part of Government; the scum rises to the top.


BSBD,

Winsor

Agreed, just look at how they try to bill you.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-talk-huppke-gay-marriage-abortions-20150422-story.html

The U.S. Supreme Court will finally hear arguments on same-sex marriage next week, and that can mean only one thing: We're all going to die.

One amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court includes an entire section called: "God's Judgment on the Nation."

It notes that "homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is 'defiled,' the people have been cast out of their homes."


In another amicus brief:

this one filed by "100 scholars of marriage" and explained by one of those scholars, attorney Gene Schaerr, in a recent post on The Heritage Foundation's news website.

The brief claims that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to "nearly 900,000 more abortions" over the next 30 years. Schaerr writes in his post that same-sex marriage legalization leads to reduced opposite-sex marriage rates, which translate into "an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women."



To quote another esteemed DZ.com regular: Jesus Tittyfucking Christ! :S Assuming these briefs had to be filed by lawyers actually admitted to a bar association, I'd say some statute should exist that automatically removes from the bar any attorney who uses ridiculous "evidence" such as this to support a position under consideration by the Supreme Court. This is just embarrassing.
See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marks2065

since same sex marriage is mostly legal, I was wondering when multi partner, animals, and groups like Manbla will get their turns to marry?



Damn right! Because giving the same right to other adults is the same as allowing molestation of minors.
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>since same sex marriage is mostly legal, I was wondering when multi partner

Probably at some point.

>animals

Never seen a dog express an interest in marrying another dog. But if you want to form your own church and marry a dog, then by all means, do so. It will have no legal significance, of course, since marriage has no meaning when applied to animals. But if it's important to you, then by all means, have a ceremony.

>and groups like Manbla will get their turns to marry?

Who will "Manbla" marry? Perhaps Smersh, or Kaos, the Westboro Baptists? (that would be fun)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>since same sex marriage is mostly legal, I was wondering when multi partner

Probably at some point.

>animals

Never seen a dog express an interest in marrying another dog. But if you want to form your own church and marry a dog, then by all means, do so. It will have no legal significance, of course, since marriage has no meaning when applied to animals. But if it's important to you, then by all means, have a ceremony.

>and groups like Manbla will get their turns to marry?

Who will "Manbla" marry? Perhaps Smersh, or Kaos, the Westboro Baptists? (that would be fun)



There are many people already that want to marry their pet http://www.dividedstates.com/indiana-woman-wants-marry-her-pet-dog-tries-to-rally-support-from-gay-rights-activists/

And nambla has been trying http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2013/06/30/a-supreme-court-victory-for-nambla/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marks2065

since same sex marriage is mostly legal, I was wondering when multi partner, animals, and groups like Manbla will get their turns to marry?



I guess you could train a parrot to take the vows. Not sure about other animals.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>There are many people already that want to marry their pet . . . http://www.dividedstates.com/...ay-rights-activists/

Fine. Let em form their own church and do it. (Again, they will of course have no legal meaning.)

>And nambla has been trying http://johngaltfla.com/...-victory-for-nambla/

Yeah, I was reading that, then realized it was written by John Galt. Until I see an opposing opinion from Luke Skywalker I'll reserve judgment. In the meantime, I have not seen anyone propose relaxing marriage-age laws so no worries. (18 in all states, unless someone has parental permission; then it varies by state.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though I find your retort juvenile, I'll still post a reply. I'll say this as plainly as possible, so no one is confused. (ETA: although I really do appreciate the lighter replies of everyone else!)

As I've said before, the part that the government gets involved in (inheritance, tax deduction for being a dependent, legal protection, spouse benefits) should be equal regardless of the genders of the two consenting adults.

I have no problem with religious unions that want to involve more than two consenting adults (three or more) -- as long as those additional spouses don't get to collect additional social security, or count as more legal dependents, or any other extra benefits afforded by the government.

Different religions already invalidate the "marriages" of other religions (or JP weddings for that matter), where it comes to matters of their defined religious sanctity. I'm not saying any religion has to change its policy. But when it comes to government benefits and privileges related to such a partnership, I have a problem with the inequality. Let the churches discriminate against practices outside their own communities for matters strictly religious, but leave the legal side alone.

If the civil side of it gets changed to "civil unions," then it should be equal for all two-person, adult partnerships. Take "marriage/married" out of all government references, and replace with "spouse" or some other legal partnership term.
See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TriGirl

Though I find your retort juvenile, I'll still post a reply. I'll say this as plainly as possible, so no one is confused. (ETA: although I really do appreciate the lighter replies of everyone else!)

As I've said before, the part that the government gets involved in (inheritance, tax deduction for being a dependent, legal protection, spouse benefits) should be equal regardless of the genders of the two consenting adults.

I have no problem with religious unions that want to involve more than two consenting adults (three or more) -- as long as those additional spouses don't get to collect additional social security, or count as more legal dependents, or any other extra benefits afforded by the government.

Different religions already invalidate the "marriages" of other religions (or JP weddings for that matter), where it comes to matters of their defined religious sanctity. I'm not saying any religion has to change its policy. But when it comes to government benefits and privileges related to such a partnership, I have a problem with the inequality. Let the churches discriminate against practices outside their own communities for matters strictly religious, but leave the legal side alone.

If the civil side of it gets changed to "civil unions," then it should be equal for all two-person, adult partnerships. Take "marriage/married" out of all government references, and replace with "spouse" or some other legal partnership term.



I'm with you, except that I feel any number of consenting adults should be allowed to have a civil union. Why not?

Also, I'm a little more hostile because I'll say that the bigoted fucktards that are trying to use government to oppress other human beings should all open their fridges, take out all the shelves, climb in and close the door behind them before slitting their own fucking throats.
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>I'm with you, except that I feel any number of consenting adults should be allowed
>to have a civil union. Why not?

Sure. Don't they call that a "corporation?"



Zing!

But in all seriousness, I really don't see the point in blocking it. If I want to "marry" my girlfriend and my heretofore secret mistress and we're all cool with it, why not?
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>But in all seriousness, I really don't see the point in blocking it. If I want to "marry" my
>girlfriend and my heretofore secret mistress and we're all cool with it, why not?

The only problem is one of structure. Right now "marriage" includes things like the right to make medical decisions if the other person is incapacitated. That is generally pretty clear. But what if you are injured and three of your wives want to pull the plug but wife 4 wants to try the risky surgery? Who gets to make the call? Is it a vote? That's something that _could_ be incorporated into marriage but is not currently. So that would have to change. It would become something very like a corporation, with rules on what a quorum was, what the procedures are for voting etc.

But provided you dealt with all of that, then no problem.

(And of course this is all solved by government civil unions plus whatever marriage you want.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0