Thoughts

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

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? Yes. You can not make a person get married if she/he does not want to that is my basis in this country. If they arrange a marriage and she/he willingly goes along, no problem. Sorry, that is how it works over here.

Aren't some of the honor killings that have taken place in the us over this very issue. Yes Don't the muslims have the right to say who their daughter will marry. They have a right to say wtf they want, the law is not on their side as to making that person do as they say. Don't they have the right to be judged under Sharia law?

Not in this country. In fact they should be tried for murder.


A 20-year-old Muslim woman has died in an Arizona hospital, nearly two weeks after her father ran her over with his Jeep Grand Cherokee because she had become “too Westernized.”
Noor Faleh Almaleki, originally from Iraq, died this week of injuries suffered when she was run over October 20 in a parking lot in the Phoenix suburb of Peoria, Arizona.
According to this report, authorities said they expect to change the aggravated assault charge against her father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, to more severe counts after meetings with prosecutors.
Peoria police said Faleh Hassan Almaleki believed his daughter had become “too Westernized” and had abandoned “traditional” Iraqi values.
Peoria police spokesman Mike Tellef told CNN the family moved to the Phoenix area in the mid-1990s, and Almaleki was unhappy with his daughter’s style of dress and her resistance to his rules.
After the incident, Almaleki’s father drove to Mexico, abandoning his vehicle in Nogales, Peoria police said.
He then made his way to Mexico City and boarded a plane to Britain, where authorities denied him entry into the country and put him on a plane back to the United States.
A friend of the dead woman, Amal Edan Khalaf, 43, also suffered serious injuries in the attack, police said.
Almaleki faces a separate aggravated assault charge in connection with her injuries. According to this report, Noor had been living with Khalaf and Khalaf’s son after backing out of an arranged marriage about a year ago.
The father is currently held in Phoenix, with bail has been set at $5 million.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

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.

It certainly does because the 10th amendment says it does. Now if the people of the state choose to regulate it or ignore it that is their right. The same reason Nevada has legalized prostitution. As 2dogs said if you don't like it there are choices that you have. Those choices don't require you to give up the rights given to you by the US constitution.

Originally Posted by WTF

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.

Again, what if that family subscribes to the eastern theory that a good marriage is cultivated over time in which the two parties come to grow and love each other as a result of the marriage and the common bond and mutual benefit of the families involved.

You are discriminating against those people with your closed minded view of marriage being a "contract" that two people enter into as a result of their love and commitment to each other that is cultivated before the marriage.

Marriages in the eastern model tend to be more successful, statistically speaking, than the western model.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

It certainly does because the 10th amendment says it does. Now if the people of the state choose to regulate it or ignore it that is their right. The same reason Nevada has legalized prostitution. As 2dogs said if you don't like it there are choices that you have. Those choices don't require you to give up the rights given to you by the US constitution.

I know my choices. I choose to speak of how idiotic we as a nation are. We give up what should be our personal choice to the government. I choose to say how stupid I think that is. If that changes one mind, that is one more enlightened person on this planet. You have every right to advocate we live as slaves if you so choose. To advocate arranged marriages...preach on brother.




Again, what if that family subscribes to the eastern theory that a good marriage is cultivated over time in which the two parties come to grow and love each other as a result of the marriage and the common bond and mutual benefit of the families involved. I have said nothing about their choice to believe as they will..

You are discriminating against those people with your closed minded view of marriage being a "contract" that two people enter into as a result of their love and commitment to each other that is cultivated before the marriage. My main point has been consent. Not love. Not how great the marriage might become but personal freedom to choose. If somebody from India chooses to make their parents happy and enter into an arranged marriage that they do not want to really be in , that is a choice. But if they choose not to, we have no law making them do so. How hard is that to understand?

Marriages in the eastern model tend to be more successful, statistically speaking, than the western model.

Fuc yea, if a woman had no rights or choices but to get married to whomever her family picked out for her and had to stay married without any choice in the matter, I could see from an idiotic standpoint where one could consider that more successful. Hard to get divorced, when divorce is not an option!

[boardman]

You continue to apply your western mentality to eastern culture. You would also deny muslims the right to practice their religion under the freedom of the 1st amendment. You would apply your laws to them based on your own moral convictions but allow others to get away with what you believe is morally and ethically fair.

You asked me what line was being crossed and I've illustrated it for you.
I happen to believe marriage is and should be a commitment between one man and one woman.
The point I am making is that when you allow that to be redefined then it is subject to being redefined again and again to accommodate those that feel they are being discriminated against. The results are unintended consequences that we can no longer control once the precedent has been set. Yes my examples were ridiculous but I only chose them to show how ridiculous your argument is. Thing is I realize that you live for making ridiculous arguments for the purpose of arguing. The sandbox can be entertaining in small doses but sometimes I thinck you guys need to get laid a little more often.

[Guest123018-4]

I am in favor of removing as much government involvement in a person life as possible.
I support mandatory sunset provisions on all laws.
There are however some things that we allow the government to do such as certain record keeping and that is what it really boils down to.
My suggestion is that you can have same sex marriage but one of the two will have to declare that he or she is the husband and the other the wife. By the time they argue over that one they will not want to be married.

[Guest123018-4]

Next thing you know somebody will want to marry their goat, or sheep.

[pyramider]

Just not the kids ...

[Can I Play Too???]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

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

Almost every time I read one of his posts, I say his name out loud. But, he is a funny fucker. Lol

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

You continue to apply your western mentality to eastern culture. You would also deny muslims the right to practice their religion under the freedom of the 1st amendment. You would apply your laws to them based on your own moral convictions but allow others to get away with what you believe is morally and ethically fair.

I am doing no such thing. If I move to a Muslim country, I go by their rules. I am applying the laws of this land to them.

You asked me what line was being crossed and I've illustrated it for you. Where did I ask you what line was being crossed.
I happen to believe marriage is and should be a commitment between one man and one woman. That is your right. Nobody is making you marry a man or a woman nor a goat. I happen to believe in personal choice in this matter moreso than you it appears..
The point I am making is that when you allow that to be redefined then it is subject to being redefined again and again to accommodate those that feel they are being discriminated against. It was redifined when whites and blacks were allowed to marry. Do you regret that? The results are unintended consequences that we can no longer control once the precedent has been set. That is my point, there should be no control in a matter of personal choice. You have only give examples where there was not personal choice. Just as current law is. There is no personal choice for gays. That is wrong IMHO. Yes my examples were ridiculous but I only chose them to show how ridiculous your argument is. You would use the same argument towards blacks and whites marrying in the 1950's? Though in the majority you would be on the wrong side of what is fair. That is why the gays are gaining ground on this issue. Thing is I realize that you live for making ridiculous arguments for the purpose of arguing. 'Live for' sounds a bit Olivia Howardish. Next you will accuse me of stalking. The sandbox can be entertaining in small doses but sometimes I thinck you guys need to get laid a little more often.

I have never had reason to complain on lack of pussy. Knock on wood!

But bitching about gays wanting to get married seems like more a lack of pussy on your part than me saying I don't see anything wrong with it. You cares? It does not effect me in the least. I would like to see this country treat people in the minority fairly is all.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pyramider

Just not the kids ...

Ewe!

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by pyramider

Just not the kids ...

The practice of child brides still exists in several Muslim countries. Mohammad married a six year old and consumated the marriage when she was nine. Muslims consider Mohammad to be the most perfect man that ever lived, and consequently, a role model. God forbid Sharia law ever comes to America.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...age-Yemen.html

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

What line are you talking about?

Once again, for the record, I am for the institution of marriage remaining between a man and a woman. If gays want their civil unions let them have it but keep the language separate. Why do I have to acquiesce to having my beliefs minimized so that a gay couple can feel empowered by forcing their agenda down my throat when there is a simple alternative. Here's the deal. Just like every other people group in America. They want to be equals until it is politically expedient not to be. If you don't want to be singled out don't put yourself on the podium. If you think I'm saying this out of left field you are wrong. I have personal experience with being in a situation where someone just wanted to be normal but obviously manipulated the situation to where they could accuse me and others of discriminating against them(a woman and her 8 year old son that she put in inappropriate situations in order to cause problems...In a volunteer position of all places. The entire process was carried out in order to file suit against the non-profit organization I was volunteering for. Fortunately the woman's previous successful attempts at doing the same thing elsewhere were brought to light and her plan with us was foiled. The point is I'm skeptical when it comes to the real motives behind gays that want to redefine marriage when they already have a perfectly acceptable alternative.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by WTF

I love how ta'll gladly what should be a personal choice over to the States but cry about the Federal Government intervening. Neither should in my book. A personal choice should be just that.

If a school does not want to play another school that has a girl on their team , then fine with me. No government should intervene. Same as marriage. If a man choses to marry another man, fine, no government should stop them. But some on here are fine with personal choice unless it goes aganist their morals, then they want the government to define it. They have no trouble discriminating aganist others that are not just like them. What kind of personal freedom are they talking about?

There may be hope for you yet! LOL!

Everyone is bumping up against a couple of the nuclear rules, lets be real careful.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by boardman

You continue to apply your western mentality to eastern culture. You would also deny muslims the right to practice their religion under the freedom of the 1st amendment. You would apply your laws to them based on your own moral convictions but allow others to get away with what you believe is morally and ethically fair.

You asked me what line was being crossed and I've illustrated it for you.
I happen to believe marriage is and should be a commitment between one man and one woman.
The point I am making is that when you allow that to be redefined then it is subject to being redefined again and again to accommodate those that feel they are being discriminated against. The results are unintended consequences that we can no longer control once the precedent has been set. Yes my examples were ridiculous but I only chose them to show how ridiculous your argument is. Thing is I realize that you live for making ridiculous arguments for the purpose of arguing. The sandbox can be entertaining in small doses but sometimes I thinck you guys need to get laid a little more often.

The sandbox is a poor substitute for sex but it's a lot cheaper. Based on the hostility on this board, many of us need a great deal more sex.

[Seedy]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

The sandbox is a poor substitute for sex but it's a lot cheaper. Based on the hostility on this board, many of us need a great deal more sex.

Yep . Couldn't agree more, some need a good grudge fuck. And some need to take a long walk off a short bridge....LOL.... And I'm not referring to anyone in this thread.....