Thoughts

[JD Barleycorn]

I guess WTF is lucky that he didn't have to oppose Muslims and their beliefs.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

Yet you will discriminate against Jake because he and his goat want to get married. To borrow from you: You can't have it both ways.

Jake's goat is not a consenting adult.

If only one person consents it is either slavery or rape, depending on the act.

[Seedy]

Originally Posted by boardman

Yet you will discriminate against Jake because he and his goat want to get married. To borrow from you: You can't have it both ways.

Maybe Jake got denied because he wasn't wearing his hipboots....LMFAO

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

Jake's goat is not a consenting adult.

If only one person consents it is either slavery or rape, depending on the act.

sex is not a requirement of marriage. What part of that do you not understand?

I'll add a to make it lighthearted.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

sex is not a requirement of marriage. What part of that do you not understand?

I'll add a to make it lighthearted.

But a consenting adult is part of the marriage contract. Not sex, I agree. That is why two people should be able to marry no matter their gender. What part of consenting does a goat fit into?

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

But a consenting adult is part of the marriage contract. Not sex, I agree. That is why two people should be able to marry no matter their gender. What part of consenting does a goat fit into?

Aside from the fact that I don't understand why you keep insisting on a contract I must also disagree that the marriage must be consentual. As I said earlier. Marriages have been arranged as long as the concept of marriage has been around. Sometimes these marriages involve children. Therefore consent is not necessary for marriage just as sex is not. Following that logic, if Jake wants to marry his goat or I want to marry my pocket watch then that should be acceptable. No?

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The government needs to stay out of it.
IT IS FUCKING SPORTS.

The gay marriage is a non-issue, it is a state choice. If you do not like what a majority of people decide in that state; go to a different state. there are 49 more of them. Or, you can choose to stay and put your money where your "thoughts" are and fund a get out the vote and change it IN YOUR STATE.
The federal government does not issue marriage licenses.

I may have to fall in love with you .

The two ideas are not related in any way other than one is about co-ed sports and one is about co-ed marriage.

The decisions of the Catholic Church would not affect my daughter as she would never be sent to a catholic or any other religious school for that matter. If another school's team wanted to forfeit in a championship game because my daughter was on the field, fine by me.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by WTF

Jake's goat is not a consenting adult.

If only one person consents it is either slavery or rape, depending on the act.

Juanita Broaddrick didn't consent.



Juanita Broaddrick, right, with residents of her Arkansas retirement home and Bill Clinton in April 1978, the same month she alleges that Clinton assaulted her

[Guest123018-4]

I think we should date first.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

Aside from the fact that I don't understand why you keep insisting on a contract I must also disagree that the marriage must be consentual. As I said earlier. Marriages have been arranged as long as the concept of marriage has been around. Sometimes these marriages involve children. Therefore consent is not necessary for marriage just as sex is not. Following that logic, if Jake wants to marry his goat or I want to marry my pocket watch then that should be acceptable. No?

Not in this country, if you want to move to India then yes arranged marriages happen. In this country you do not have to enter into an arranged marriage.

So yes in this country consent is a requirement. There are no laws making you get married aganist your will that I am aware of. You know something I don't in this regard?

Originally Posted by boardman

Following that logic, if Jake wants to marry his goat or I want to marry my pocket watch then that should be acceptable. No?

No , neither the pocket watch gave consent nor the goat.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I just thought it was funny that WTF started a thread called "Thoughts." Like he has any experience with them.

If you ever get into a contest with WTF where you have to use your brain you would be so far behind it would be like he is at the finishing line and you have barely started.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The gay marriage is a non-issue, it is a state choice. If you do not like what a majority of people decide in that state; go to a different state. there are 49 more of them.Or, you can choose to stay and put your money where your "thoughts" are and fund a get out the vote and change it IN YOUR STATE.
.

I am choosing to educate the uneducated on a hooker board! The state has no more businress in a personal ( such as marriage or who you play aganist in sports) choice than the Federal government does. It seems as if we are agreeing but you do not want to say so.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I

The two ideas are not related in any way other than one is about co-ed sports and one is about co-ed marriage.

.

Personal freedom may not be related to you in these two regards but they are to me.

The government has no business in who you choose to play sports with nor who you choose to marry. That includs both the state and Federal government. It should protect kids from getting married and folks that do not consent in these matters , nothing more IMHO.

Of course the state should not intervene in sports nor should it in marriage. That is why it was wrong for states to ban blacks and whites from marrying just like it is wrong for them to ban gays from marrying

Some of us are more linear on that thought process than others.

btw gay marriage is not co-ed.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Juanita Broaddrick didn't consent.



Juanita Broaddrick, right, with residents of her Arkansas retirement home and Bill Clinton in April 1978, the same month she alleges that Clinton assaulted her

The problem was her affidavit saying it did not happen. That is hard to overcome when you recant.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

Not in this country, if you want to move to India then yes arranged marriages happen. In this country you do not have to enter into an arranged marriage.

So yes in this country consent is a requirement. There are no laws making you get married aganist your will that I am aware of. You know something I don't in this regard?



No , neither the pocket watch gave consent nor the goat.

If an Indian couple living in America wants to arrange a marriage for their young daughter then you are in favor of discriminating against them. On what basis? Cultural, religious....What?

Aren't some of the honor killings that have taken place in the us over this very issue. Don't the muslims have the right to say who their daughter will marry. Don't they have the right to be judged under Sharia law?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by WTF

The problem was her affidavit saying it did not happen. That is hard to overcome when you recant.

This excerpt is from Wikipedia. The Chief Investigative Counsel (a Democrat) stated that he believed Juanita Broaddrick had been intimidated into recanting her affidavit. I believe Clinton raped her. Clinton has a long record history of sexual predatory behavior and of course he is a documented pathological liar.

Broaddrick recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony. Broaddrick later said of the affidavit, "I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn't want to go through it again."[2] David Schippers, the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee which was holding an inquiry on whether Clinton had committed impeachable offenses, stated that he believed Broaddrick filed the affidavit because of intimidation from Clinton, saying, "She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them."[5] Although Broaddrick claimed that no one had pressured her to file a false affidavit, she complained that she was being watched from parked cars, her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly, during the House impeachment probe.[5]