mox
Mar 28 2008, 02:36 PM
QUOTE(seanconneryii @ Mar 28 2008, 12:25 PM)

...so three cheers for heterosexuality.
lol...you and I agree on at least one thing.
slim
Mar 29 2008, 09:54 AM
I've never understood why people make an argument for not allowing gays to marry while not requiring increased scrutiny for heterosexual couples as well. Why can anyone, provided they are heterosexual, get married just because? They don't have to prove they're in love. They don't have to prove they're making a good decision. They really only have to prove their identity.
The same goes for children. There's no licensing, there're no pre-requisite classes or training programs. There are no financial guidelines or set limits for birthing. There isn't even a bag limit.
I believe if we were to license families much in the way we license hunting, then we'd fare better in the end. Wanna have kids? Gotta get the kid stamp on your license and you can't get it until you've taken the 56 hour course in child familiarization, care and maintenance. Then, you've gotta prove you make more than 125% of the poverty level and then you have to pay a fee for the right to give birth, the "welcome" tax, and the annual renewal of the stamp. (plus your license.)
We would never do that because it limits people's rights to make bad decisions.
I forget who they were asking but some newsperson was asking a politician about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. He said, "Sure. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?"
Kazan' Tiger
Mar 29 2008, 10:52 AM
Speak for yourself, boys! «Knocks head on desk» Sorry... My inner "Nathan Lane" was coming out!

QUOTE(mox @ Mar 28 2008, 03:36 PM)

QUOTE(seanconneryii @ Mar 28 2008, 12:25 PM)

...so three cheers for heterosexuality.
lol...you and I agree on at least one thing.

manwithabeard
Mar 29 2008, 12:15 PM
Just noticed I was the 500th poster on this thread!
mox
Mar 29 2008, 01:40 PM
Yeah but I was the 500th replier.
Kazan' Tiger
Mar 29 2008, 02:26 PM

You just love to point out that distinction!

QUOTE(mox @ Mar 29 2008, 02:40 PM)

Yeah but I was the 500th replier.

mox
Mar 29 2008, 02:40 PM
QUOTE(Kazan @ Mar 29 2008, 12:26 PM)


You just love to point out that distinction!

QUOTE(mox @ Mar 29 2008, 02:40 PM)

Yeah but I was the 500th replier.

It's an important distinction. Anyone can be the 500th poster. You just have to post after the 499th poster. But to be the 500th replier...well...you have to have actually been the 500th
replier.
manwithabeard
Mar 29 2008, 03:21 PM
QUOTE(mox @ Mar 29 2008, 03:40 PM)

QUOTE(Kazan @ Mar 29 2008, 12:26 PM)


You just love to point out that distinction!

QUOTE(mox @ Mar 29 2008, 02:40 PM)

Yeah but I was the 500th replier.

It's an important distinction. Anyone can be the 500th poster. You just have to post after the 499th poster. But to be the 500th replier...well...you have to have actually been the 500th
replier.
"Post" sounds more manly...(i.e, post hole digger).
slim
Mar 29 2008, 05:25 PM
Yeah, but if you're a "poster" that leaves a lot of room for name calling.
Chuckles
Mar 30 2008, 12:21 PM
QUOTE(slim @ Mar 29 2008, 05:25 PM)

Yeah, but if you're a "poster" that leaves a lot of room for name calling.
That's better then the "postee" I presume.
slim
Mar 31 2008, 08:59 AM
QUOTE(Chuckles @ Mar 30 2008, 01:21 PM)

QUOTE(slim @ Mar 29 2008, 05:25 PM)

Yeah, but if you're a "poster" that leaves a lot of room for name calling.
That's better then the "postee" I presume.
Hey, don't post down my back and tell me it's raining!