LDS Church fined for contributions to Prop 8!! HA!

[Archie Moses]

My last physical measured me at 5'11." That seemed a little high to me. My drivers license says I'm 5'10." I really don't care, but he's said it enough times now that I'm more confused than anything.

I actually don't consider 5'10" to be short. Just average.

 

[Deleted member 365]

The previous holder of the short jokes on this board was Viny. I'm like 6 inches taller than Viny. This is truly baffling to me.

I checked around for average height statistics in the country and, depending on whose measurements you believe, I'm either an inch taller than average or right at the average.

Are you guys basing this on photos of me at stadiums? You realize that stadium seating is at a slope so people behind me will always appear taller right? Maybe I'm shorter than the average basketball fan or something?

Then stop buying nice seats and buy the highest seats you can in the building with no one sitting behind you. Then we'll all recognize you as the tallest fan in the arena

 

[TroutBum]

I don't know dude -- the two times I've met you in person, I was taken by how short and wimpy you were. I'm not saying I wasn't 'turned on, but you are far from being big, or even average for that matter.

Now, if we're talking about brain size, you totally win.

 

[sirkickyass]

I don't know dude -- the two times I've met you in person, I was taken by how short and wimpy you were.

I'll totally admit to wimpy. My dad was a water polo player and an auto-mechanic that used to lift two car batteries with one hand. I take after my mother.

 

[Gameface]

I find the concept that we embrace differences by creating a separate set of laws and standards based on extraordinarily minor differences (for example, the differences between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship) very amusing.

The internal dynamics of a heterosexual relationship versus a homosexual relationship might be great. The technical differences that would describe what one partner's obligations and responsibilities to the other would be are insignificant. So insignificant, I would suggest, that there is no need for a separate law in order to "protect" and/or "embrace" our differences.

It bothers me a great deal to hear people, Beantown mostly, imply that:
1- Our rights are given to us by society.
2- The rights we receive are based on our overall value to society.
3- Society is free to set arbitrary standards (I'm with Atheist preacher in that we can define morals based on concrete principles, but that's not what's being done here) and then deny basic rights and privileges to individuals based on these standards.

1- We, as individuals, have rights independent of society or government.
2- The preservation of society cannot come from the destruction of the individual. Society exists to benefit the individual, not the other way around.
3- In a constitutional republic such as ours all people are viewed (theoretically) as equal under the law.

To justify denial of a full franchise in our society/culture based on the lack of value one is deemed to have to society is beyond horrifying. It's the kind of thinking that leads otherwise normal people to feel like they're doing their duty as they shove living people into poisonous showers and crematory furnaces because they are undesirable and do not add value to society.

 

[YB85]

I'll totally admit to wimpy. My dad was a water polo player and an auto-mechanic that used to lift two car batteries with one hand. I take after my mother.

Good god, imagine how big of a prick you would be if you also lifted weights and was a jock. You would be the black hole of prickdom.

 

[Stickler]

To justify denial of a full franchise in our society/culture based on the lack of value one is deemed to have to society is beyond horrifying. It's the kind of thinking that leads otherwise normal people to feel like they're doing their duty as they shove living people into poisonous showers and crematory furnaces because they are undesirable and do not add value to society.

Oh dear God, Gameface. You know, I sat here reading you post, thinking: this is a good post. This is such a good post, that after I'm done reading it, I'm going to quote it and simply say, "Good post." But you just had to go and ruin things for me there at the end, didn't you....

 

[sirkickyass]

Good god, imagine how big of a prick you would be if you also lifted weights and was a jock. You would be the black hole of prickdom.

I'm completely positive I would have been one of those soccer players who are constantly showing off on the campus quad and tries his luck with every girl that walks by.

 

[Gameface]

Oh dear God, Gameface. You know, I sat here reading you post, thinking: this is a good post. This is such a good post, that after I'm done reading it, I'm going to quote it and simply say, "Good post." But you just had to go and ruin things for me there at the end, didn't you....

Yeah, I guess so. But I do think that the atrocities that have taken place in Nazi Germany and the even greater atrocities that took place in China and the Soviet Union come from the basic idea that individuals exist to serve society or state or community. I think it is very important to hold the individual as the primary reason for having a society, state and community, and that the interests of the individual must be the dominating factor in establishing morality, law and rights.

How is it, do you suppose, that otherwise normal people went along with things in Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union? This isn't ancient history, carried out by people whom we can write off as barbarians.

 

[Stickler]

Of course, the atrocities of Nazi Germany are really totally irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. We have been without gay marriage, as a nation, from the outset; yet we have never marched homosexuals into gas chambers.

 

[shporq]

Of course, the atrocities of Nazi Germany are really totally irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. We have been without gay marriage, as a nation, from the outset; yet we have never marched homosexuals into gas chambers.

True, but Germany never marched Jews into gas chambers until that time when they did. While it's a shaky argument to use comparisons to Nazi Germany in practically any debate(though it's very common - see Godwin's Law), Gameface's point wasn't that the US is on it's way towards systematic murder of homosexuals. His point is that the idea that the rights of the individual exist only so far as they serve the state, rather than the other way around, is flawed.

 

[Gameface]

Of course, the atrocities of Nazi Germany are really totally irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. We have been without gay marriage, as a nation, from the outset; yet we have never marched homosexuals into gas chambers.

I was attacking the rather ridiculous argument put forward by Beantown that because procreation is good for society we allow heterosexual people to get married, and because homosexual relationships cannot produce offspring they should be denied the ability to marry. That argument is based on the idea that your freedoms are given to you based on what benefit you having that freedom provides for society. If one can justify taking away personal freedom using that argument I don't see why taking away an individual's life, for the good of society, follows that far behind.