Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (149853)	12/12/2008 4:13:39 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 173976

"Okay monkey man. A marriage is a two way contract. A man doesn't marry a woman, they marry each other. A chimp is not a human and can't enter into a contract. Your logic here is pitiful. Does this really seem like a good argument to you?" No. I like your argument better than one that would qualify the chimp somehow. You changed it a bit though. You included the necessity of the two way contract. Two-way would exclude the zoophiliac but that wasn't stated in the Supreme Court statement. The Supreme's said it was a basic civil right of man. You expanded the verbiage of the definition to include an obvious assumption. The vast majority of people understood the obvious assumption to be marrying each other in a two way contract as you do, but between a man and a woman, not a man and a chimp, or his daughter, or an object, or another man. So, if you now insist upon taking the obvious assumptions related to the original statement as the basis of the definition, I'm ok with that. Next topic...