Forget Plan A, Let's Go With Plan B

Yes or no for Plan B?

  • Yes! Make Plan B readily available OTC.

    Votes: 23 88.5%
  • No! Let nature take it's course.

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • Total voters
    26

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,070
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,996
Pandora said:
Dispite your arrogance you don't know everything about me. I'm not as willfully ignorant and complacent as you might like to think. Unlike you who still lives under mommys apron, I have bills so I actually have to work and can't spend 24/7 researching my facts. Regardless, I'm just not falling for your bullshit trolling. You're not trying to debate, you just want to argue and there is no point in that. This is why I respond to you with lama pictures, and why from this point forward I will continue to do so. Grow up child the world doesn't care how big of an asshole you can be or how much you know.
I never did say I know anything about you, except that I'm sure you can defend yourself. So are you denying that?

I like arguing, you are the only one with a problem with it. You are well free not to respond. Respond: I'll argue. No matter what anyone says I will argue with them. There are enough different sets of facts that any one of them can be argued against. It is not a failing on my part that my facts are checked, in fact it is disgustingly short amount of time that requires they be checked, if they need checking at all. Most of this is from memory and you would not even be replying with personal attacks if they were not correct for it would be far easier to simply point out where they are wrong.

Due to your obvious irrationality, and the nepotism involved in any forum, I refuse to use any attacks on your character. I'll just leave the fact that I never get personal, as has been demonstrated many times, to judgement by those reading this. I shall not be sucked into some textual punic war by people I now have little or no regard for.

The very fact that you post this kinda crap shows just how little you actually understand. Get some medication or find another forum for your egos amusement.
More personal attacks. :rolleyes: Not even in response to a post directed at you. Sarcasmo oboviously understood the lighthearted and satrical nature of the post. It isnt, again, my fault that you cannot seperate between to serious and the lighthearted, the personal and the rhetoric, and are unable to express it except through personal attacks.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
FlamingGlory said:
I'm well aware of [gay] marriage case law. Most recently that of the Appelate Court of NY holding up the ban on gay marriage. (too long to type out name) http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf

I am aware of one mention of the pursuit of happiness in marriage case law: Loving v Virginia "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Though the decision was not made on the pursuit of happiness, it was made on the equal application of law.

The only thing I see left is the 9th Amendment:

"[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Then there is Roe v Wade, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."

So obviously, whether or not I agree, natural rights are not proctected.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings on several occasions that marriage is a fundamental right that shall not be denied unless the state has "compelling" interest that would justify barring certain couples from the institution, like siblings. The status of marriage has been articulated in cases involving everything from interracial couples and prison inmates to deadbeat dads. In fact, all the state marriage amendments, such as ours in Texas, are geared to prevent courts from applying this settled law to the situation of gay families.

So why don't gay couples win marriage cases? Because most judges tweak things a little bit and define the fundamental "right to marry" as the "right to marry a member of the opposite sex." Voila. Legal obstacle dissolved.

Pardon my french, but what a load of bullshit.

(This was paraphrased from elsewhere.)


FlamingGlory said:
Ethics is an exercise of philosophy. Law is a philosophy laid down with strict rules. It's why I find jumping between them is rather easy, though I admit I have no formal training in arguing law, only philosophy. It is rather strict for my tastes but I dont think I apply it in a way that is inconsistent with it's use. Ethics means nothing in any case except for a catch all term for the various ethics which exist. Would you like an argument based on:

a) Subjectivist ethics
b) Intuitive ethics
c) Natural ethics
d) Individual situational ethics
e) Divine Command ethics
f) Ideal observer (this would probably follow a strict legal stance though)
g) Prescriptivist ethics
h) Error theory/Nihilst ethics

For about half of those I can still argue the same point, but the number of inferences needed to make that point, and the substantial amount of specialised knowledge needed to understand it increases to the point where few find it persuasive. US Law is rather unarguable as an ethic, and simple to understand.

And this right here is why I enjoy talking to you. I hate philosophy and can't argue it worth a flying monkey's ass. I leave it to you.
 
Last edited:

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,070
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,996
Flamer McDickchugger said:
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings on several occasions that marriage is a fundamental right that shall not be denied unless the state has "compelling" interest that would justify barring certain couples from the institution, like siblings. The status of marriage has been articulated in cases involving everything from interracial couples and prison inmates to deadbeat dads. In fact, all the state marriage amendments, such as ours in Texas, are geared to prevent courts from applying this settled law to the situation of gay families.

So why don't gay couples win marriage cases? Because most judges tweak things a little bit and define the fundamental "right to marry" as the "right to marry a member of the opposite sex." Voila. Legal obstacle dissolved.

Pardon my french, but what a load of bullshit.

(This was paraphrased from elsewhere.)
I know, I love legal reasoning! If something does not fit, redefine exactly what "fit" means. I can do that until the cows come home. I'd hate to practice "law" in the first instance but as an apellate judge I could wreak havoc!

It doesnt change the fact that:

a) Marriage is a legal instrument that does not exist in nature and therefore cannot be argued to be a natural right.
b) Natural rights are not protected by federal law anyway, supra. 9th amendment/Roe v Wade
c) Although the ''[f]reedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.'' Loving v Virginia. Under (for the sake of ease) NY law, there is no disproportionate treatment of either men or women, they are both allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, so the constitutional argument fails on the grounds of equal protection.
d) All cases you can cite will have Marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman. Either substantially or literally.
d) If the right to marry anyone you choose were a fundemental right, bigamy laws would be unconstitutional. Incest laws would be unconstitutional. Etc.

And this right here is why I enjoy talking to you. I hate philosophy and can't argue it worth a flying monkey's ass. I leave it to you.
Aww :heart:
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,070
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,996
*Fuxx Burger* said:
Woohoo! I'm one of 2 people against it! :dance:
Why?

[For all those reading, I never voted. "I like pie" should be an option on ALL polls. Because I do like pie.]
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,953
18,766
823
Marklar
₥21,493
theacoustician said:
Sorry nay-sayers .. all two of you ... plan B will be OTC
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/24/morning.after.pill.ap/index.html
There isn't enough scientific evidence that young teens can safely use Plan B without a doctor's supervision, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, the FDA's acting commissioner, said in a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
:lol: yeah because having your 18th birthday means your body is suddenly capable of taking this drug safely yet being 17 and eleven months doesn't
 

thrawn

Flaccid Member
Oct 13, 2004
14,850
0
0
Marklar
₥0
April23 said:
The fact that you could be sick for several days should be advertisment enough to make them think twice about using it birth control.

Sick for two days or swelling up, pooping a child out after nine months of discomfort and then being responsible for 18+ years of education...take your pick, which would you choose? I've been sick for a couple days cause I have done some stupid things but I'd probably do them again.

FlyNavy said:
Girls aren't very smart. :fly:

Don't lay blame :p
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,360
38,053
1,823
Houston
Marklar
₥59,346
thrawn said:
Sick for two days or swelling up, pooping a child out after nine months of discomfort and then being responsible for 18+ years of education...take your pick, which would you choose? I've been sick for a couple days cause I have done some stupid things but I'd probably do them again.


True story, but girls don't think of the future. 9+ months is too far away to care.

OMG ORGY
 

bast_imret

Erect Member
Oct 26, 2004
5,219
39
41
Marklar
₥157
April23 said:

lemurorgy.jpg