I believe sex education should be mandatory in public schools.
Not quite as cut-and-dried as it might seem- in theory it's a great idea, but in practice it gets taught much too early.
I don't believe that church marriages should be legally binding institutions of the state, and I don't believe that you have any right to tell two (or more!) consenting adults that they can't live together, raise kids together, or file taxes together.
Maybe because marriage, pretty much by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Like, that's not me bashing gay or bi people, that's the actual, original definition.
But Black Hat wasn't speaking of a hypothetical definition. He was talking about an existing one. Old or not, marriage is still defined as a union between a man and a woman. I'm not against same-sex unions (I don't care about it one way or another) but the word 'marriage' by definition cannot be applied to a legal union between same-sex couples. Don't like it? Have the definition legally changed. Simple.Bronzewolf wrote:I don't believe that church marriages should be legally binding institutions of the state, and I don't believe that you have any right to tell two (or more!) consenting adults that they can't live together, raise kids together, or file taxes together.
Maybe because marriage, pretty much by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Like, that's not me bashing gay or bi people, that's the actual, original definition.
So I have a genuine question with this one, then, Black Hat. If the ancient, original definition for say, riding in a carriage (something they've had for thousands and thousands of years), was that only white/European races could ride in a carriage, would you stand behind that definition?
If there was some ancient text that said "Carriages are to be explicitly used by white people and no one else. ", would you campaign for that to be upheld? Despite changing times?
It might look like a silly, broad analogy at first, but it's really not. You're letting this one group have a privilege because of an ancient definition, while denying it to another despite now, 2000 years later, other groups more than deserving the right to that privilege and to be happy.
Rodimus Prime wrote:Old or not, marriage is still defined as a union between a man and a woman.
Yeah im with ya bud.EunuchRon wrote:How about everyone get together and share some energon! We can all over-energize and reminisce about the good old days on Seibertron, before the war. Then we can have a Transformers marathon and watch everything from G1 onward and argue about important stuff, you know, like which series had the best artwork and toys, and who likes what voice actor best! Come on fellas, can we do that and forget real life for a while?
Exactly. That is why it's a debatable subject. And I didn't agree with it, mind you, because I believe everyone should have freedom to make choices that make them happy, as long as those choices don't harm others, physically or emotionally. But at the same time you'll never find me at a march or protest for gay rights, simply because as I said before, I don't care either way. I have enough problems in my own life, I can't take up for others'.Burn wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:Old or not, marriage is still defined as a union between a man and a woman.
Not sure how it is over there, but here the big argument is that yes, it is defined as between a man and a woman, but that definition has stemmed from the Church.
Chicago Tribune wrote:President Donald Trump declared that the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that left at least 26 people dead was not "a guns situation," saying instead he believed that "mental health" was the problem.
U.S. Constitution wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Rodimus Prime wrote:But as it is now, the only definition of 'marriage,' right or wrong, is "the union between a man and a woman," and therefore doesn't apply to same-sex couples. Unfortunate fact of life.
Moonshot wrote:Looks like some people are already tired of all the winning, lol.
Moonshot wrote:Shall not be infringed. 2nd amendment argument over. They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even. Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks? Yes. Same as guns. Lots of times when government takes citizens guns, it leads to mass executions soon after. Germany, 7 mill dead, Turkey 1 mill mostly Christians, Soviet Union 50 mil dead, China 60 mill, and I could go on and on. That is the reason "they" want to take US citizens guns; control plain and simple.
Moonshot wrote:Looks like some people are already tired of all the winning, lol. Gonna be a long 7 yrs for u guys Shall not be infringed. 2nd amendment argument over. They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even.
Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks?
Moonshot wrote:Shall not be infringed.
Moonshot wrote:2nd amendment argument over.
Moonshot wrote:They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even.
Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks? Yes. Same as guns.
Lots of times when government takes citizens guns, it leads to mass executions soon after. Germany, 7 mill dead, Turkey 1 mill mostly Christians, Soviet Union 50 mil dead, China 60 mill, and I could go on and on.
[/quote]That is the reason "they" want to take US citizens guns; control plain and simple.
1. Trump is not just a blowhard. He makes everything about himself while bucking all blame and responsibility. He does not understand the government, the military, or international relations, and has no desire to learn. Containment is a strategy administrations apply to hostile foreign powers - administrations should not have to contain the President for the safety and security of the homeland. It is not normal, and it is indicative of serious danger and dysfunction.Black Hat wrote:Trump may be a blowhard, but there are worse things to be. And if we're talking "Stupid things politicians have said" how about Hillary ranting that her supporters weren't working hard enough, and that anyone who opposed her was a "Deplorable"?
Politicians are ambitious people, who, by and large, are trying to make their home and country better. Corruption happens. But to project bad faith on the entire political class is to say that government, by definition, does not work. That blithe observation requires further justification.Black Hat wrote:Politicians are, with very few exceptions, colossal douchebags. White, black, man, woman, whatever- they're all liars and cheats.
Equating a black movement meant to empower a historically oppressed group with a white movement that not only empowers the black group's historical oppressors, but considers blacks racially inferior, skirts (or even crosses into) racism and white supremacism. Watch yourself.Black Hat wrote:There's also the fact they have a hero named "Black Panther" (yes I am aware he's been around for a while, but that doesn't really help Marvel's case much) which is pretty much the black equivalent of calling a superhero "Klansman".
Cobotron wrote:Hey! You seemed to have attracted a wild Megatronus. They're hard to find, but boy are they fun when you catch one!
fenrir72 wrote:WTFrack? When I previously posted about the economic policies of the previous administration affecting our purchasing habits (rising fuel prices, global warming plastics etc) I got my head bitten off yet it seems like it's open season against PotUS Trump!
As for the so called dossier, cheetos etcs, it was commissioned by the DNC courtesy of HRC with Russkie assistance. Let's not get going on what HRC and Bubba have been up to (cheated Bernie in the DNC Convention)
So the moral is, what's good for the goose is also for the gander. Both sides are equally despicable, only the liberal side is mucho worst 'cause, well they got the LSM to cover for them via selective reporting!Don't forget how Tipper Gore and Lieberman wanted to go censoring evil rap songs and violent videogames! I'd have expected that from the Cons. Don't get me going with that SanFran Senator Lee Land Yee, a Democrat antigun nutjob convicted for selling guns to terrorists!
Cons are just as despicable what with feigning morality and all and the Press rakes them over the coals to no end. That's good but when they start favoring a side by selectively reporting, well, you know that someone sold out their principles!
fenrir72 wrote:Snopes as the get to all your info unbiased source? I'd rather not to go through that route. As a medical researcher, a single sourced well of information is just not what you do when you form your review of related literature as a foundation for a research proposal.
Anything created by man is sure to have subconscious biases.
As for the never ending bile and hatred against the PotUS, he still got 3 years and if he plays his cards right, another 4 years. Want to stop it? Well the DNC need to get their act together and sell the voters (especially the rust belt) a much better plan of improving their lot in life. Go out and vote and not the whiny Antifa route of protest and destroy!
Ever wonder why the guy won in the first place? Despite being (according to the LSM) worst/despicable/misogynist/racist candidate of them all? HRC was even worst! Or are you anti PotUs crowd not aware of the stunt she pulled against Bernie? Courtesy of the ex Head of the DNC Donna Brazile.If the best DNC candidate was fielded against him, maybe y'all would have been happy. But HRC rigged the DNC primary and you get...........what?, Unicron/the Fallen/Megatron or Donaldus Trumpimus Prime!
Hating the PotUS ain't gonna get you anywhere . Just go about doing your job, collect TFs! If the world economy improves, we'll be feeling it. If the World Peace and order improves, will be feeling it (no thanks to the previous Nobel Peace Prize winner , just ask the Iraqi's, Syrians and Libyans).
If not, then vote the guy out. Simplicity as drawing the earths heat from the green crystal thingie in the Arctic circle.
Cobotron wrote:Hey! You seemed to have attracted a wild Megatronus. They're hard to find, but boy are they fun when you catch one!
megatronus wrote: ... wrote a bunch of stuff because it was Monday and he was bored ...
See, this is what I'm talking about. According to these, homosexuals should be allowed to get married, and unless the Supreme Court order has been reversed, they are. So if the accepted definition allows it, as well as the highest judicial level decrees it, what's the problem?Caelus wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:But as it is now, the only definition of 'marriage,' right or wrong, is "the union between a man and a woman," and therefore doesn't apply to same-sex couples. Unfortunate fact of life.
Rodimus Prime wrote:I understand that it's not that simple, but it should be. Why can't couples of the same sex be treated the same as couples of the opposite sex? Because some book or rule written like 2000 years ago says it?
Rodimus Prime wrote:See, this is what I'm talking about. According to these, homosexuals should be allowed to get married, and unless the Supreme Court order has been reversed, they are. So if the accepted definition allows it, as well as the highest judicial level decrees it, what's the problem?Caelus wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:But as it is now, the only definition of 'marriage,' right or wrong, is "the union between a man and a woman," and therefore doesn't apply to same-sex couples. Unfortunate fact of life.
Super Megatron wrote:Trump is Optimus Prime and they should had colored him in red, white, and blue instead.
EunuchRon wrote: That guy that shot up the church got stopped by a local with a rifle. You forget that? Not a cop, not a soldier, but Joe American in the right place at the right time. Banning guns wouldn't stop a killer. Hell, he coulda firebombed the church or drove a truck through it like that dude in NY did on the bike path.
Return to Transformers Cartoons and Comics Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Gauntlet101010, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot]