Reactionary Radical Eliminationists vs. Trans

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Nova, Feb 1, 2023.

  1. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,208
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +22,269
    It’s bullshit. Your entire argument is bullshit. SCOTUS can and will reverse whatever the fuck it can. And if they can’t, then they allow legal maneuvering to gain their ultimate goals.

    More legal bullshit.
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  2. Steal Your Face

    Steal Your Face Dead

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    50,289
    Ratings:
    +33,573
    ^ Arguing in good faith everyone. Try answering the question instead of deflecting.
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  3. Crosis36

    Crosis36 Author

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Messages:
    3,280
    Ratings:
    +10,170
    I'm not sure how "protection from being deported" is legal bullshit.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Crosis36

    Crosis36 Author

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Messages:
    3,280
    Ratings:
    +10,170
    I already did.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Steal Your Face

    Steal Your Face Dead

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    50,289
    Ratings:
    +33,573
    There is no right to marriage mentioned.
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  6. Steal Your Face

    Steal Your Face Dead

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    50,289
    Ratings:
    +33,573
    You didn't answer the question that I didn't ask you.
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  7. Crosis36

    Crosis36 Author

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Messages:
    3,280
    Ratings:
    +10,170
    Okay. Follow with me, child:
    If marriage is a legally recognized contract, the government can not discriminate based on race or sex. Period. End of game.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. Steal Your Face

    Steal Your Face Dead

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    50,289
    Ratings:
    +33,573
    You can call it bullshit all you want, but the only way to get legal marriage protections is to write and pass legislation doing so.
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  9. Steal Your Face

    Steal Your Face Dead

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    50,289
    Ratings:
    +33,573
    I'm not a child.
    • Fantasy World Fantasy World x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,208
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +22,269
    Assuming it’s as you said, neither was in the relationship to gain anything legally, then it had nothing to do with the relationship. In fact, it’s the opposite. The legal aspects affected the relationship, adversely.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  11. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,208
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +22,269
    If the only reason you get into a relationship is for legal protection, then I’d say you don’t know the other person well enough to be married.
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  12. Spaceturkey

    Spaceturkey i can see my house

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    32,028
    Ratings:
    +38,156
    to be fair, the english language doesn't really appear until just before the renaissance... at least not in a sense that most folks would understand it written or spoken.

    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Ten Lubak

    Ten Lubak Salty Dog

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    13,148
    Ratings:
    +29,950
    How come gay marriage is being discussed in the trans thread
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Bickendan

    Bickendan Custom Title Administrator Faceless Mook Writer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,198
    Ratings:
    +31,218
    "Look, we platonically love each other and have no romantic interest, but we're in uni and you just aged off your parents' insurance. If we marry, you can get on mine."
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. Coloratura

    Coloratura 3% Fruit Juice

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2024
    Messages:
    1,097
    Location:
    United States
    Ratings:
    +2,648
    It's connected.
    A lot of trans people who won't be considered trans under new laws will instead be considered a same sex couple, which means their marriages would be at risk.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  16. Nova

    Nova livin on the edge of the ledge Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    49,806
    Ratings:
    +39,530
    THANK YOU.

    I am AGAIN forced to state that I want my goddamn thread back.


    Platformer has obtained the dehumanizing new guidelines moderating what people can now say about trans people on Facebook and Instagram. Employees tell me these changes are likely to inspire more violence against LGBT people:
    Note the last paragraph in this image.

    [​IMG]

    Inside Meta’s dehumanizing new speech policies for trans people

    But wait! There's more!

    internal Meta docs revealing an array of sample posts that are now allowed under new hate speech rules. Examples include calling children "trannies," “Jews are flat out greedier than Christians," and “immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit”

    Leaked Doc: New Rules Allow Slurs on Facebook, Meta Platforms

    I'm sure "community notes" will be up to the challenge.

    Who told this bozo that Elon was a role model to be emulated?
    • Angry Angry x 2
  17. tafkats

    tafkats vagina filled dick balloon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    25,876
    Location:
    Sunnydale
    Ratings:
    +55,237
    How's that gonna work, exactly?
    • Agree Agree x 4
  18. tafkats

    tafkats vagina filled dick balloon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    25,876
    Location:
    Sunnydale
    Ratings:
    +55,237
    ... says the same person who swore up and down that SCOTUS would never reverse Roe v. Wade.

    Which state legislature would that be? The one that's currently trying to ban it?
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  19. tafkats

    tafkats vagina filled dick balloon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    25,876
    Location:
    Sunnydale
    Ratings:
    +55,237
    It's amazing how many so-called "libertarians" are totally willing, if not downright eager, to see people trampled on six ways from Sunday as long as it's a state government doing the trampling.

    Was Loving v. Virginia wrong as well?
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • popcorn popcorn x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    63,186
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +29,268
    On the honor and integrity of the parties involved.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  21. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,208
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +22,269
    If this is suppposed to be an argument in favor of legal marriage, it fails. IMO, if I’m willing to pay for a complete stranger’s insurance, the insurance company should not have fuck all to say about it. So, it fails to convince me. Only serves to support my stance.
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  22. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,208
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +22,269
    This is a huge reason why “the law” and “the government” should not be any where near a commitment between two people. If you “marry” for some other reason, then the legal term and the action between two people who commit to cohabitating for “romantic involvement” should have entirely different terms.

    When speaking of cohabitating for ‘romantic involvement” we have a term. And that term is ‘marriage’.
    When speaking of entering a mutually beneficial financial relationship then that term is partnership.

    If two people, regardless of sexual preference, decide to cohabitate for romantic involvement, the government should not be involved.
    Any partnership between two people who need a contract to ensure both sides are legally protected, is already based on mistrust and therefore have no business in a romantic relationship.

    The US already has laws protecting people from discrimination. People need to focus on ensuring those laws are followed rather than creating more for assholes to ignore.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  23. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,208
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +22,269
    I’ve never been considered a libertarian but we already have laws protecting people from discrimination. Those laws need to be referenced and enforced.

    How those effected, allowed assholes to create new laws essentially saying “except ‘these’ people, we can discriminate against them” is beyond me. Yes, I know the Republican Party has a better PR firm, but maybe .. I don’t know, hire even a bad one.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. RickDeckard

    RickDeckard Socialist

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    38,965
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +34,621
    False, as already discussed. I have cohabitated for romantic involvement a handful of times. I have only married once. By your definition, I and probably most others are serial divorcees.

    Also as you've already been told, the legal protection is not merely from each other but from others, bestowing rights related to children, finances, inheritance, medical issues and various other things.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  25. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    104,348
    Ratings:
    +88,326
    Can we have the gay marriage stuff split out, and called "They're coming after Obergefell next"?
    • Winner Winner x 3
  26. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,208
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +22,269
    Call it whatever you want. But don’t be intentionally stupid. The ideas, the situations, to which I am defining are indeed, defining of those specific situations.

    The problem is that people insist on using specific terms intentionally to mislead others into agreeing . If one doesn’t possess the mental capacity to differentiate ideas on their own, their opinions should be given the same weight as their inability to think.
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  27. RickDeckard

    RickDeckard Socialist

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    38,965
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +34,621
    :wtf:

    Are you on strong medication?
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Coloratura

    Coloratura 3% Fruit Juice

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2024
    Messages:
    1,097
    Location:
    United States
    Ratings:
    +2,648
    You can watch live, if you like, where the Montana Legislature is deciding whether or not trans people can take a piss. HB 121, a full adult bathroom ban in all publicly owned buildings. The link below goes to a live hearing on the bill (or recorded if you're reading this after the hearing ended).

    https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20250110/-1/51155

    You can follow Erin Reed's coverage of it here:
    https://bsky.app/profile/erininthemorning.com/post/3lffhmfqcr22v
    • Angry Angry x 2
  29. DEI Hire

    DEI Hire Illegal by Executive Order

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2023
    Messages:
    2,014
    Ratings:
    +6,776
    The hilarious part is that I bet Jenee thinks she's smarter than most people here. Like she's this brilliant psychological mind we can't keep up with. And like others have said, this isn't misogyny; she's just really stupid.
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
  30. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    104,348
    Ratings:
    +88,326
    If disagreeing with Jenee is instant misogyny, then Garamet must have had internalized misogyny.
    :lol:
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1