1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#302 Mar 13 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Do you think less of me for not answering, Lolgaxe? I bet you do. Smiley: frown

and what the hell is a "lolgaxe" anyway?


lol, great axe.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#303 Mar 13 2012 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, I remember when I was just a wee Warrior foolish enough to think I was supposed to use a sword. Good times.


Hell, I used a spear exclusively up until level 21-ish, IIRC. Not for any intention to become a DRG, but just because spears are awesome, and I didn't know better.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 11:23pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#304 Mar 13 2012 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I used to have a shadowknight in Everquest who I leveled up exclusive on blunt and piercing weapons, just to be different. Then I hit the high levels and all the cool knight weapons were swords and I had to sit and grind hundreds of points worth of one- and two-handed slashing skills Smiley: motz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#305 Mar 13 2012 at 10:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, I remember when I was just a wee Warrior foolish enough to think I was supposed to use a sword. Good times.


Hell, I used a spear exclusively up until level 21-ish, IIRC. Not for any intention to become a DRG, but just because spears are awesome, and I didn't know better.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 11:23pm by Eske


Playing Mnk was nice. Grab a set of those mid-teens Republic Knuckles, use until you were in your mid to late 30s, lolol.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#306 Mar 14 2012 at 3:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
Faggot: a bundle of firewood.

Etymology of the use of Faggot to describe homosexuals: From the time, a long time ago, homosexuals were burnt alive on bonfires along with "witches".

Social/Cultural change since then: homosexuals are now recognised by the majority of younger people, and a large minority of older people, as being people just like "us", with a major sexual kink that is not the norm but is harmless, and certainly doesn't barr homosexuals from deserving full human rights, and equal treatment to heterosexuals. A kink that gives no reason to treat "them" like second class citizens.

Heterosexual couples can marry. This is a legal state, that brings with it automatic rights and responsibilities with respect to each other, and with respect to the State and Nation. The aforementioned majority of younger people and large minority of older people, now seeing homosexuals as full human beings, instead of abominations that ought to be killed, want homosexuals to enjoy marriage to each other, with the same rights and responsibilities in that state that married heterosexuals have.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#307 Mar 14 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
I like how I can skip over gbaji's walls of text and not miss anything that's going on in the thread.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#308 Mar 14 2012 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
I like how I can skip over gbaji's walls of text and not miss anything that's going on in the thread.


I generally glance at the first paragraph, loosely skim the next, scroll down to see how long it is, then just skim the last and respond. Works better with academic works, since you get to read the citations, but considering he could boil down his entire post to 1 or 2 sentences if he tried, generally fine.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#309 Mar 14 2012 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Etymology of the use of Faggot to describe homosexuals: From the time, a long time ago, homosexuals were burnt alive on bonfires along with "witches"


Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's an etymological myth.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#310 Mar 14 2012 at 5:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why not repeat the argument?

Because you say this every time as well.


I say this every time because you continue to refer to some mystical post where you laid out exactly the counter argument I'm asking for, yet every time I ask what it was, you just say "I already told you!" and then change the subject real quick.

Quote:
You just keep denying, denying, denying and pretending no one ever said anything so you win.


Given the sheer number of times this happens to me and I humor people by repeating the argument I've already made 18 times before (often in the same damn thread), you'll have to forgive me if I don't feel sorry for you. Perhaps you could just humor me this time and actually repeat the argument instead of just repeating that you already told me?

Pretty please?


Or is this the part of the argument where you claim victory and move on, without once even presenting an argument let alone supporting or proving it? Cause that's what it feels like. It's not like you haven't done the exact same thing in every other gay marriage thread we've had, so I'm not exactly surprised. You're only cheating yourself Joph.

Edited, Mar 14th 2012 4:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#311 Mar 14 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Social/Cultural change since then: homosexuals are now recognised by the majority of younger people, and a large minority of older people, as being people just like "us", with a major sexual kink that is not the norm but is harmless, and certainly doesn't barr homosexuals from deserving full human rights, and equal treatment to heterosexuals. A kink that gives no reason to treat "them" like second class citizens.

Heterosexual couples can marry. This is a legal state, that brings with it automatic rights and responsibilities with respect to each other, and with respect to the State and Nation. The aforementioned majority of younger people and large minority of older people, now seeing homosexuals as full human beings, instead of abominations that ought to be killed, want homosexuals to enjoy marriage to each other, with the same rights and responsibilities in that state that married heterosexuals have.


So by your logic, first cousins aren't full humans? Think it through. You're making an assumption that isn't valid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#312 Mar 14 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
First of all, marriage to first cousins is legal in 24 states.

Secondly, cousin marriage laws are eugenics-based. The risk for biological deformation is 3-4% higher in the children of first cousins. And populations are, generally speaking, healthier when the gene pool remains diverse.

That said, cousin marriage didn't actually show any meaningful reduction after these laws were passed. It didn't decline (or even gain much stigma) in the US until women had the power and autonomy to move through society, effectively giving them the ability to vastly increase the number of marriage candidates by leaving small town communities for new ones, or for cities. It wasn't until this period, a good 60-80+ years after the eugenics movement, that it began to be seen as incest, and therefore immoral. In many modern nations of the world, outside the US, it still does not have this connotation--cousin marriage is relatively common in Australia, for instance.

Therefore, your analogy does not work, as the objection to homosexual marriage was moral in nature, where the objection to cousin marriage was purely eugenics.

Furthermore, even as early as the 70s, major medical and political organizations have been decrying cousin-marriage prohibitions as excessive and unnecessary, as the increased risk to children is negligible, and the laws don't actually provide any meaningful aid to the diversity of the gene pool (which is becoming naturally more diverse, particularly in the US, due to globalization).

Oh, and interestingly enough, part of the reason they called for an end to these laws was the fact that the stigmatization to first-cousin children that they caused was generally far more widespread and damaging than the minimal increase in genetic defects.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#313 Mar 14 2012 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Social/Cultural change since then: homosexuals are now recognised by the majority of younger people, and a large minority of older people, as being people just like "us", with a major sexual kink that is not the norm but is harmless, and certainly doesn't barr homosexuals from deserving full human rights, and equal treatment to heterosexuals. A kink that gives no reason to treat "them" like second class citizens.

Heterosexual couples can marry. This is a legal state, that brings with it automatic rights and responsibilities with respect to each other, and with respect to the State and Nation. The aforementioned majority of younger people and large minority of older people, now seeing homosexuals as full human beings, instead of abominations that ought to be killed, want homosexuals to enjoy marriage to each other, with the same rights and responsibilities in that state that married heterosexuals have.


So by your logic, first cousins aren't full humans? Think it through. You're making an assumption that isn't valid.


You should know the reason why first cousins are on the no-marriage list.* Homosexual couples don't have to worry about that problem, what with the inability to reproduce. Keep squirming though trying to hunt for excuses, it is rather fun to watch the worm squirm in the dirt before the bird eats it.

*At this point it wouldn't surprised me to see you type "It's because they are icky!" or some variation of it.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#314 Mar 14 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,129 posts
Oddly, in the U.S. first cousins are more likely to be permitted to marry in states where homosexuals are not.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#315 Mar 14 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,073 posts
Coincidentally the people who are the loudest against same sex marriage are also the ones most likely to marry their first cousins.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#316 Mar 14 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Perhaps you could just humor me this time and actually repeat the argument instead of just repeating that you already told me?

Less keystrokes to say this each time now than to repeat te whole argument each time. Seriously, go read all the old threads.
Quote:
Or is this the part of the argument where you claim victory and move on

The beauty of a strong self of self-esteem is that ham-handed attempts to manipulate me don't work so well.
Quote:
You're only cheating yourself Joph.

Nice of you to be concerned but I'm just fine Smiley: smile


Edited, Mar 14th 2012 8:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#317 Mar 14 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,129 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Coincidentally the people who are the loudest against same sex marriage are also the ones most likely to marry their first cousins.


Some folk'll never marry cuz
But then again some folk'll
It's Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel!


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#318 Mar 14 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Criminy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So by your logic, first cousins aren't full humans? Think it through. You're making an assumption that isn't valid.


You should know the reason why first cousins are on the no-marriage list.


Of course I do. My point is that we exclude them for reasons other than not viewing them as "full human". Ari's argument was basically that by not granting legal marriage to gay couples, we are treating them as less than fully human. But if that were true, then it would be true for all sets of people we don't allow to qualify for marriage. Which would mean first cousins, siblings, groups of more than 2, etc.

Since we *don't* view those sets of people as not being fully human, then Ari's assumption isn't valid. While this does not preclude the possibility of some people not viewing gay people as fully human, it does preclude the assumption that by not granting them the same access to the legal status of "married" we are treating them as less than fully human.

Quote:
Homosexual couples don't have to worry about that problem, what with the inability to reproduce.


Yup. So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce. It's almost like the marriage status exists as an incentive to get those couples to marry so as to maximize the procreative outcome of our society. But that's just a crazy interpretation. Never mind that it is the single consistent facet to our traditional rules for who gets to marry.

The ancient Greeks didn't view homosexuality as an abomination. They practiced it as a matter of course. Yet, they didn't recognize gay marriages either. In that society, men married women in order to create families. They had sex with other men for pleasure. Amazing how frequently this whole procreative aspect of the issue of marriage keeps cropping up. Makes one wonder why some people insist on denying it.

Quote:
Keep squirming though trying to hunt for excuses, it is rather fun to watch the worm squirm in the dirt before the bird eats it.


I'm not squirming at all. You basically just provided yet more support for my position.


I think the first problem many people have when they look at government benefits, is that they interpret them in the context of why a specific group is denied them. What you should be doing is looking at why the state grants them to the group it includes. Ask why the state would target a given benefit at a specific set of people. Then ask if that same reason applies to a larger set. If marriage benefits were just about the lives of the two people involved, we would have no reason to exclude people because of close blood relations (or for being the same sex). There's only one quite obvious explanation for why we bother to exclude that group. And once you understand that, you should understand why gay couples should also be excluded.


But that would require objectively looking at the issue rather than reacting based on emotion. And that's hard for most people to do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#319 Mar 14 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
gbaji wrote:
So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce

Smiley: dubious

No one should be able to decide who can or can't reproduce.

I consider myself a liberal, but not necessarily a Democrat. I don't like big government. And I don't think the government should be able to tell anyone who they can or can't marry.

Have you forgotten that homosexuals are still in the minority? So if every single state decided tomorrow that they could get married, there would still be less SSM than straight marriage. I bring this up because you once said that you didn't want your taxes increasing to pay for the benefits of SSM.

Just shut up about the children. It's not about the children. If it were, single parents wouldn't get all the things from the government that they do, while married parents are struggling.
#320 Mar 14 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Coincidentally the people who are the loudest against same sex marriage are also the ones most likely to marry their first cousins.


Some folk'll never marry cuz
But then again some folk'll
It's Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel!




I don't know what just happened, but I think I need a shower...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#321 Mar 14 2012 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,129 posts
Just don't marry a boy cousin and you'll be fine.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#322 Mar 14 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Well, one of my cousins is really hot. But he's my second cousin once removed, or something like that, and his mom was adopted. So I feel less awkward about it. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#323 Mar 15 2012 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Of course I do. My point is that we exclude them for reasons other than not viewing them as "full human". Ari's argument was basically that by not granting legal marriage to gay couples, we are treating them as less than fully human. But if that were true, then it would be true for all sets of people we don't allow to qualify for marriage. Which would mean first cousins, siblings, groups of more than 2, etc.


No, we don't give marriage licenses to first cousins, siblings, etc because of the health risks that are involved when they reproduce. If homosexuals want to reproduce they don't have that problem.

Gbaji wrote:
So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce.


While my wording wasn't extremely precise I was hoping you would be brighter than a parrot for once. Sure two women / men cannot produce children with just their partner but when you modern medicine (or a willing third) you can have a homosexual couple that has kids. Cousins don't have to worry about going that extra step due to obvious reasons. So you want to grant marriage licenses to couples who may / want to reproduce? Glad to see you are starting to understand our side.

Gbaji wrote:
There's only one quite obvious explanation for why we bother to exclude that group.


Don't suppose you could expand on that, what with it being so obvious. Partly because I am genuinely curious why.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#324 Mar 15 2012 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,073 posts
Criminy wrote:
Sure two women / men cannot produce children with just their partner but when you modern medicine (or a willing third) you can have a homosexual couple that has kids.
There's also that system that's been around for thousands of years: Adoption.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#325 Mar 15 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Sure two women / men cannot produce children with just their partner but when you modern medicine (or a willing third) you can have a homosexual couple that has kids.
There's also that system that's been around for thousands of years: Adoption.


Yeah but the Gbaji will just say that adoption doesn't count for god knows what reason. So I just focued it down to involving love juices to help focus his attention. But that, obviously, is an impossible task. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#326 Mar 15 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Only natural children count. Adoption isn't natural Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#327 Mar 15 2012 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Fake Libertarian Gbaji: Roads are immoral.

Real Republican Gbaji: I want to restrict the the rights and/or benefits of someone who doesn't affect me at all.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#328 Mar 15 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce

Smiley: dubious

No one should be able to decide who can or can't reproduce.


And yet, I don't see you beating down the doors of big government, demanding that they lift the restrictions for marriage "rights" for siblings and second cousins. Strange, isn't it?

Quote:
Have you forgotten that homosexuals are still in the minority? So if every single state decided tomorrow that they could get married, there would still be less SSM than straight marriage.


And?

Quote:
I bring this up because you once said that you didn't want your taxes increasing to pay for the benefits of SSM.


It's not about taxes increasing (although even a small number would increase that total cost, right?), but about what my tax dollars are paying for. As a single taxpayer, I'm the one who foots the bill for the various benefits which married couples have. Thus, I have an issue with making sure that the targets of those benefits match the reasons I'm willing to pay for them. I'm ok with providing those benefits for the reasons I've stated before. If the benefits are extended to couples who can't reproduce, then I'm *not* ok with providing them those benefits. I see no more reason to provide them to a gay couple, than to any other random two people who decide to collectively apply for them, married or not.

Quote:
Just shut up about the children. It's not about the children.


it's not "about the children", it's about encouraging procreation in the best conditions possible. That was stated in absolutely clear terms in the example law we discussed earlier. You're free to dispute the degree to which it's about encouraging procreation within wedlock, but it's absolutely true that it is at least *part* of the reason.


Quote:
If it were, single parents wouldn't get all the things from the government that they do, while married parents are struggling.


And every step of the way, conservatives have argued against providing those benefits to single parents for exactly the reason that it would weaken marriage. So using those benefits as a reason to further eliminate the purpose of marriage as a state legal status isn't much of an argument. Don't you see how one step of the slippery slope is used to justify the next? Well... Now that we've provided a bunch of benefits which reward people who have children out of wedlock, we may as well just extend these now redundant marriage benefits to same sex couples because they can't really be about procreation anymore, right? Lol!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#329 Mar 15 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
I didn't expect an answer that made any sense and I wasn't disappointed. As usual, you missed the point.
#330 Mar 15 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Criminy wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Of course I do. My point is that we exclude them for reasons other than not viewing them as "full human". Ari's argument was basically that by not granting legal marriage to gay couples, we are treating them as less than fully human. But if that were true, then it would be true for all sets of people we don't allow to qualify for marriage. Which would mean first cousins, siblings, groups of more than 2, etc.


No, we don't give marriage licenses to first cousins, siblings, etc because of the health risks that are involved when they reproduce.


So *not* because they aren't fully human, right? So there are legitimate reasons to restrict marriage that doesn't involve assuming that those who don't qualify aren't human. That's all I'm saying.

Quote:
If homosexuals want to reproduce they don't have that problem.


Same sex couples can't reproduce. We're talking about the couple, not two individuals. You get that the point of marriage is to treat them as a single legal unit, right? You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
While my wording wasn't extremely precise I was hoping you would be brighter than a parrot for once. Sure two women / men cannot produce children with just their partner but when you modern medicine (or a willing third) you can have a homosexual couple that has kids. Cousins don't have to worry about going that extra step due to obvious reasons. So you want to grant marriage licenses to couples who may / want to reproduce? Glad to see you are starting to understand our side.


Same sex couples can't reproduce. You really aren't getting this. The individuals can, but nothing they do with their partner facilitate this. Reproduction is *never* a natural outcome of a same sex relationship. Which is kinda the whole point.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
There's only one quite obvious explanation for why we bother to exclude that group.
Don't suppose you could expand on that, what with it being so obvious. Partly because I am genuinely curious why.


Sigh.

Because neither group is part of the set of couples we want to encourage to marry and procreate. One, because we don't want them to procreate (siblings and first cousins), and the other because they *can't* procreate. You're making the mistake of starting at the benefits and asking "who would be benefited by this?". But if you start first by assuming that there is some social problem and marriage laws/licenses are the solution, then you should be able to noodle it out.


The problem is that heterosexual couples produce children. They produce them as a statistically unavoidable outcome of being couples. You have a sufficient number of heterosexual couples, and you will get some number of babies as a result. From a 15,000 foot level, you can't know which couples will reproduce, or when, but you can say that some number of them will. Some of them will get married. Some of them will not (marriage in this case just being the traditional social institution that's been around for ages). Those who don't marry, or those who enter into marriages which the state may not be able to enforce will likely result in single mothers raising children. Historically, social pressures and lack of mobility ensured that most sexually active couples got married and tended to stay married. With the rise of larger and more mobile modern middle and working classes, this became a problem. The state increasingly became involved in legal disputes over issues of marriage, divorce, property, paternity, etc and absent sufficient legally binding marriages, it was difficult to resolve them. Thus, It became in the state's interest to create a three party marriage contract with the state as a party, and then find ways to encourage couples to marry and to use that contract when they got married. In some cases, they applied those marriage laws even if the couple didn't officially file for it (common law marriage).


The point is that the problem being solved by state marriage laws is that of couples producing children out of wedlock. The benefits to marriage are intended to provide incentives for couples to marry, so that any children they produce after that point will be born within a legally binding marriage for which the state can control the terms and enforcement. That's the whole point to this. It's why the state would bother to create a marriage status in the first place. Otherwise, there's no reason for it.

The restrictions on who can qualify for that status flow logically from that purpose. If your purpose is to get couples who might otherwise produce children together to enter into a legally binding marriage, then you want to provide those benefits to just those couples who *may* produce children together. This automatically excludes same sex couples. While we can argue for more restrictions because some heterosexual couples may not be able to produce children, there is no rational argument for going the other way and extending those benefits to gay couples. Similarly, since we don't want siblings or other close relations to marry, we don't give them benefits either.


That's it. It's completely logical. It makes perfect sense. There's nothing about marriage and our marriage laws which doesn't fit within this context. Against this logical argument we have.... nothing. Just wild appeals to emotion. It's not about who we're discriminating against, but who it makes sense to provide the benefits for. We don't do it just for fun. We do it because there is a reason. We don't exclude gay couples from marriage benefits because we don't like them. We exclude them because [bl] they aren't the ones we need to encourage to marry[/b]. If they want to marry, they're free to do so. No one's stopping them. But the state issued marriage license and the laws and benefits associated with it are a legal construct created to address a specific problem which gay couples don't cause.


We have as much reason to provide those benefits to two random people walking down the street as we do to gay couples. Stop asking why we should deny them those benefits, but ask why we should provide them to them?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#331gbaji, Posted: Mar 15 2012 at 8:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I missed your point. But if you honestly believe I did, by all means explain it in greater detail. Because it looked to me like you were just trying to argue that since gay couples can't reproduce, there's no reason not to grant them marriages. But my point is that because they can't reproduce, there's no reason to.
#332 Mar 15 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
So *not* because they aren't fully human, right? So there are legitimate reasons to restrict marriage that doesn't involve assuming that those who don't qualify aren't human. That's all I'm saying.

Absolutely. This does not in any way prove your point, however, only protect it from being immediately disproven. The proposition "some X have Y" does not create the leap to "this X has Y".
#333 Mar 15 2012 at 11:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
746 posts
I can understand gay marriage as a band-aid, but shouldn't marriage just give no legal benefits? I don't see why everyone shouldn't be required to get a civil union instead.
#334 Mar 16 2012 at 3:42 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
<wall of text>


Hmmm I see your response and raise you



So you are choosing to ignore people who cannot reproduce but still are heterosexual and just focus on homosexual? How convenient for you. Also decided to lolwiki marriage and see if it says marriage is mainly for the children.

Quote:
People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[1][2] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.


Hmm interesting... it's so obvious even lolwiki didn't get it right. Smiley: dubious It can't be that you're completely off on why people get married Gbaji. It's everyone else right?
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#335 Mar 16 2012 at 4:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
gbaji wrote:
But if you honestly believe I did, by all means explain it in greater detail.

No thanks. It wouldn't make any difference. You've made up your mind. I pick my battles, and this isn't one I care enough about.
#336 Mar 16 2012 at 5:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,261 posts
gbaji wrote:
So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce.
That's not true at all.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#337 Mar 16 2012 at 6:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,129 posts
What about couples who are past child bearing age? Should they be "allowed" to marry?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#338 Mar 16 2012 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They should be required to. Bad enough that old people are fucking; I don't need them doing it premaritally.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#339 Mar 16 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,073 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce.
That's not true at all.
Proof: The cast of Jersey Shore are allowed to marry, and no one in existence wants them to reproduce.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#340 Mar 16 2012 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Hopefully, Obama can just put off repealing DOMA until after he's re-elected & leave the rest up to the States.

It won't shut Gbaji up about his theory, just like DADT didn't shut up Alma, but I'll feel better knowing pennies of Gbaji's tax dollars is going to support something else he doesn't believe in.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#341 Mar 16 2012 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,261 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce.
That's not true at all.
Proof: The cast of Jersey Shore are allowed to marry, and no one in existence wants them to reproduce.

These kinds of "enhanced reality" shows have invaded my country now. I'm very angry about this. You people should be ashamed.


It's the same kind of rage I felt when Xfactor came to England. I mean, this country produced Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Venom, Motörhead, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Lead Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, The Smiths, The Cure, The Damned, The Jam, The Police, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, Jarvis Cocker, David Bowie, Queen, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Supertramp, The Chemical Brothers and The Prodigy.

And, if you're watching the X-Factor after a résumé like that, well, you're a bit of a bastard.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#342 Mar 16 2012 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
I thought X-Factor and American Idol were spinoffs from the UK.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#343 Mar 16 2012 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,261 posts
I know. It's the kind of thing that America should have dreamed up. I blame Simon Cowell. I hate that guy...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#344 Mar 16 2012 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
It won't shut Gbaji up about his theory, just like DADT didn't shut up Alma, but I'll feel better knowing pennies of Gbaji's tax dollars is going to support something else he doesn't believe in.

Besides the fact that Gbaji will just continue to deny I've ever made an argument anyway, I don't feel too inclined to get worked up about this right now because the momentum is heading in my direction. Not perfectly and not without setbacks but each year sees more advances towards SSM and more acceptance and approval from the population at large. And each victory diminishes the other side's arguments that much more. Eventually it won't matter how much money the Mormons and the GOP throw at the issue, enough people will be siding with SSM that it's going to happen.

Edited, Mar 16th 2012 9:05am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#345 Mar 16 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,466 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I know. It's the kind of thing that America should have dreamed up. I blame Simon Cowell. I hate that guy...
Smiley: confused Didn't Big Brother, the archetype of reality tv, originate in the UK?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#346 Mar 16 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I thought Real World was the archetype of modern reality TV. Did Big Brother predate that?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#347 Mar 16 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,466 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
It won't shut Gbaji up about his theory, just like DADT didn't shut up Alma, but I'll feel better knowing pennies of Gbaji's tax dollars is going to support something else he doesn't believe in.

Besides the fact that Gbaji will just continue to deny I've ever made an argument anyway, I don't feel too inclined to get worked up about this right now because the momentum is heading in my direction. Not perfectly and not without setbacks but each year sees more advances towards SSM and more acceptance and approval from the population at large. And each victory diminishes the other side's arguments that much more. Eventually it won't matter how much money the Mormons and the GOP throw at the issue, enough people will be siding with SSM that it's going to happen.

Edited, Mar 16th 2012 9:05am by Jophiel
Gjabi, in his effort to appear free from any opinion based on moralistic or religious beliefs, has only the 'kids' argument to defend traditional marriage.

Unfortunately the existence of orphans and adoptions and stuff neutralized that argument sometime back in the cave-man days. It's only been further buried with IVF and other technological advances.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#348 Mar 16 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,466 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I thought Real World was the archetype of modern reality TV. Did Big Brother predate that?

I guess I'm not really up on the birth of reality tv. Indeed, wiki credits Real World as kicking things off.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#349 Mar 16 2012 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
Elinda wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I know. It's the kind of thing that America should have dreamed up. I blame Simon Cowell. I hate that guy...
Smiley: confused Didn't Big Brother, the archetype of reality tv, originate in the UK?
Netherlands, 1999. MTV's The Real World 1992.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#350 Mar 16 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,261 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I know. It's the kind of thing that America should have dreamed up. I blame Simon Cowell. I hate that guy...
Smiley: confused Didn't Big Brother, the archetype of reality tv, originate in the UK?
Netherlands, 1999. MTV's The Real World 1992.

What he said. I hate reality TV. You're sitting in your house, watching people sitting in a house. Blegh.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#351 Mar 16 2012 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,630 posts
Nilatai wrote:
It's the same kind of rage I felt when Xfactor came to England. I mean, this country produced Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Venom, Motörhead, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Lead Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, The Smiths, The Cure, The Damned, The Jam, The Police, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, Jarvis Cocker, David Bowie, Queen, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Supertramp, The Chemical Brothers and The Prodigy.
You mention Peter Gabriel but not Genesis? Smiley: disappointed

And where's the love for Saxon, Diamond Head, The Sisters Of Mercy and The Stranglers?

Edited, Mar 16th 2012 6:52pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Kavekk, Anonymous Guests (71)