|
Ruckus
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2005, 03:32:20 pm » |
|
HAHA this gonna get good now. TAKE THE FUCKING GLOVES OFF .... for a buncha gay haters you guys sure do hit like girlz  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
briman
|
|
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2005, 03:38:40 pm » |
|
Seriously Briman. Did you just call me politically correct? It's fine to disagree with me and everything, but to call me politically correct... What have you been reading?
"Oh no! Bad Stinger! You can make statistics prove anything that's even remotely true!"
Yes, of course you can pick and choose your statistics. Which is why I didn't just give you a quote, I gave you a link to a 10 page report from a government resource (And who controls the government? It sure as hell ain't us fag-lovers!) with compiled facts (Yes, facts, not just "We hate queers, therefor queers are bad, because we hate them!"), which the only guy in this thread who's actually arguing your side decided not to even address.
Gee, why would someone read and respond to the first two paragraphs, and not the rest... hmm... Maybe because he couldn't figure out how? Maybe? Just a little bit? Sorry man, I gave hard numbers, and actual sources that you can track. You guys gave me two links, one of which flat-out compared two disimilar things (And if you don't think there's a difference between dating someone, and marrying someone, then you need to be forcefully sterilized at gunpoint. Hey look! You think I'm a liberal, and yet I just threatened you with a gun! Oh no! The sky is falling! Grab your tax cuts and small penises and run for the hills!), and the other said, basically, that having two mother figured will make you more feminine...
I mean, for fucks sake, guys, I have never seen anything leading me to believe that feminine is bad in anything but contact sports, and ass fucking. And frankly, there are gay guys who play football quite well, and I can fuck a very hot woman in the ass without it being "gay", so obviously, neither of these things are hard and fast rules.
I love a good debate. Tell me when you guys are ready to start.
I called you a liberal?? And you are bagging on CW for not being able to read?? Should I quote where I called you a politically correct whore monger? Matter of fact, I didnt even say anything about political stance!! Simply said the PCWM's are in the minority, so stop bitching about it. You arn't going to win everything. And this time you lose. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) is a science of vague assumptions based on debatable figures derived from inconclusive experiments, performed by persons of doubtful mental capability with instruments of problematic accuracy.
Times I have been blown up: 2
Houses I have blown up: 2
|
|
|
|
Stinger
|
|
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2005, 03:58:31 pm » |
|
Um... Briman, the winner of a debate isn't the person who says "I win" first.
And I wasn't refering to you on the "liberal" comment, I was refering to you on the politically correct part, and as for whore monger, I've never paid for sex in my life, and much like your mythical figure Noah, I have chicks coming in pairs.
Once again, do you see why "Politically correct" doesn't apply to me?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paulsbo
|
|
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2005, 04:11:12 pm » |
|
Why do we have these threads?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
saQwad
|
|
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2005, 04:23:02 pm » |
|
The media up here is trying to whip this into a huge story, but frankly anyone in my peer group tells me it's completely irelevent to them. Who wants to get married anyways?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CycloWizard
Jr. Member
 Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2005, 04:52:37 pm » |
|
[While I'll certainly look at any numbers collected, I'll also certainly weigh the source. Like it's been said, "Readers Digest" is far from an infallable source. But if you can produce statistics mined by impartial sources, I'd be very interested in seeing them.
In the meantime...
(published by the World Population News Service); Yes, what an impartial source you've cited. http://www.populationinstitute.org/teampublish/71_359_1071.cfmThe fact that we have the ability to produce enough food is irrelivant. Because we're not gonna. And even if we did, we're not gonna do what needs to be done to get the food out there. There's statistics proving human apathy everywhere, I wont bother to reproduce them. Suffice it to say, the chances of a global governance being established in such a way that it would feed and cloth everyone are slim to none, and the chances that any governing body of that magnitude wouldn't come with some pretty evil side effects are even more dismal. So, sorry friend, you can't say overpopulation isn't an issue. People die every day, in every country, because they don't have food or shelter. And even if we had the food, the shelter issue is one hella imposing problem by itself. Thanks for engaging in further logical fallacy: begging the question. You assume that food production would not increase, therefore you must be right that population increase will not be met with increased food production. Have you ever heard of capitalism? That's where people do whatever they can to make money. In this case, food production would most certainly increase due to the increased demand for food. This would, of course, result in an increase in profits. When we started consuming more goods in the US, what happened? We found ways to produce more goods for less money. Why should this not also apply to food production? Because if it did, then your position would look retarded? Too late. You might want to try sticking to the pantsless revolution debates where your ridiculous debating antics are more appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CycloWizard
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2005, 05:04:48 pm » |
|
You're comparing homosexual relationships to heterosexual marriages. Do I have to point out that's "Apples and oranges"? I guess I do. Well, I guess it's easy to see that you didn't actually read the article before criticizing it, or you would realize that it's talking about live-in relationships - the current homosexual analog to marriage. Therefore, this is as apples-to-apples as you can get. Blah blah blah, I don't need to quote any more of that to pick it apart. So what your saying here is (Or rather, what this study is saying), that kids of lesbians are going to be more feminine even if they're male... So the fuck what? What about that means "Unfit"? Yes, more kids coming out of homosexual family environments are going to be homosexuals themselves then the number of homosexuals coming from straight parents. That's only a bad thing if you think being gay is a bad thing. Or on a base level, if you think being a feminine heterosexual is a bad thing, since I believe the study implied that the kids turned out STRAIGHT anyway... That's one difference between parents raised by homosexual couples. You obviously didn't read what I posted or you'd see that there is no evidence of increased homosexuality in kids raised by homosexuals. Increased femininity is simply a difference - one thing that one should consider before waving his hands and saying that homosexuals raising kids are no different than heterosexuals. After all, this was your claim, last I checked. What's wrong, Cyclo? Afraid to let your sensitive side out? You cannot use bigotry against others to justify said bigotry. What you have there, is circular logic. You're claiming to be well-read, you do know what that means, don't you? Or do I have to whip out the dictionary again? Maybe if you'd care to stop engaging in ad hominems for a single post (yet another logical fallacy you bring to the table to augment your jackassery), you'd be able to see that no where have I stated anything against homosexuals, only that there is no compelling reason for society to grant them benefits in the form of a marriage contract. Of course, you assume that you're right, so anyone arguing against you is automatically a bigot. This position actually paints you as the bigot, by definition. Tisk tisk, Brutus. Et tu? Um, I don't know what you think that means, but it doesn't make any shade of sense in this context. You're having a hard enough time putting a thought together in English - stick with that until you've figured it out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruckus
|
|
« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2005, 06:37:04 pm » |
|
If we live in a "free" society then why are we blocking, limiting or hindering the equality of ANY human being, period.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CycloWizard
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2005, 06:48:48 pm » |
|
If we live in a "free" society then why are we blocking, limiting or hindering the equality of ANY human being, period. Maybe you can explain how this has anything to do with 'hindering equality'? Or, you can just keep regurgitating the same talking points over and over again. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stinger
|
|
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2005, 07:04:16 pm » |
|
You obviously didn't read what I posted or you'd see that there is no evidence of increased homosexuality in kids raised by homosexuals. Um... The last line of what you quoted directly above this; since I believe the study implied that the kids turned out STRAIGHT anyway... I'm just going to stop this now, because you just proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you either didn't read half what I wrote, or didn't understand it. Like I said, I love a good debate, but this ain't one of em. Josh PS; I'll bet you're really cute. To show there's no hard feelings, Wanna go up to Quebec and tie the knot? They have really swinging parties up there. I'd, of course, be the man of the relationship. You'd probably end up crying at some point... but that's ok, because I love you, and I'll be sensitive to your needs. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 24, 2005, 07:06:36 pm by Stinger »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mnementh
|
|
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2005, 07:11:13 pm » |
|
I love a good debate. Tell me when you guys are ready to start.
You definitely aren't going to find that here. You're right, DM, and I'm partly to blame for that on this one. I was looking forward to a great thread about this topic and it quickly degenerated into nonsense, which again, was partly my fault for the personal attacks on Cyclo. I was going to go against what I stated earlier and jump back into this with sources and studies and, shamedly, more personal attacks, but I just don't have the desire anymore....especially since Briman decided to bring his singular style of idiocy to the discussion. (OK, that's the last personal attack!! I swear!!!) Suffice it to say that I still do not believe that there is a single reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, even though there was some good points and considerations raised in this thread by Cyclo that I'll surely ponder over while I think about this subject further. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stinger
|
|
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2005, 07:16:24 pm » |
|
Meh... Yeah, good point Mnem. And Paulsbo.
No sense in dragging this out, really, which I don't think my last post helped in preventing. Hah.
I still think you're very, very wrong, Cyclo. To the point where I honestly question your intelligence. But, I'm sure at this point the feeling is mutual. So, fair enough, agree to disagree. Guess we won't be meeting in Quebec.
Oh, yeah, Briman; Wasn't really trying to be mean, man... Just really seems you don't know what "Politically correct" means. It pretty much hit my sense of humor just right that I dove into... well... Enjoying the fact that someone was confused enough to call me "politically correct". I've never had that word applied to me... ever... Because it just really, really doesn't work. Seriously, not trying to be a dick, do you just have a skewed understanding of the word?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruckus
|
|
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2005, 08:15:50 pm » |
|
If we live in a "free" society then why are we blocking, limiting or hindering the equality of ANY human being, period. Maybe you can explain how this has anything to do with 'hindering equality'? Or, you can just keep regurgitating the same talking points over and over again. nice reply... real nice Your entire baseless point supports the BLOCKING of equality of human beings in our society. You can over-analize it anyway you want to. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
joel
|
|
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2005, 09:42:55 pm » |
|
Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post Quote Post |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zeradul
|
|
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2005, 10:52:28 pm » |
|
why should gays be given benefits for marrying? Because they are PEOPLE and should have the same rights as anyone else? And in response Cyclo, I want your thoughts on my reason is wrong, and then I want some evidence of harm that same sex marriage causes? And c'mon, not having their own children should be a relief to you? Right? But don't celebrate too quickly, lesbian couples often impregnate each other with their spouse's willing sibling. Anyone download the episode of Bullshit I linked you all too? Especially Psyclo and Briman. But I really encourage you all to get it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
|
|
|
|
briman
|
|
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2005, 04:33:58 am » |
|
Meh... Yeah, good point Mnem. And Paulsbo.
No sense in dragging this out, really, which I don't think my last post helped in preventing. Hah.
I still think you're very, very wrong, Cyclo. To the point where I honestly question your intelligence. But, I'm sure at this point the feeling is mutual. So, fair enough, agree to disagree. Guess we won't be meeting in Quebec.
Oh, yeah, Briman; Wasn't really trying to be mean, man... Just really seems you don't know what "Politically correct" means. It pretty much hit my sense of humor just right that I dove into... well... Enjoying the fact that someone was confused enough to call me "politically correct". I've never had that word applied to me... ever... Because it just really, really doesn't work. Seriously, not trying to be a dick, do you just have a skewed understanding of the word?
Okay stinger, let me show you what dictionary.com said politically correct adj. Abbr. PC Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. According to that, and according to your stance on this subject, you are being politically correct. It's funny how mnem just writes something off so quickly when he can't defend something because of the obvious hypocritical nature of his arguments! It's okay, mnem, you're still a fungi! (hah, that will still be one of the best jokes 50 years from now) Zera, I can link to probably 25 episodes of that religious show that comes on after whose line is it anyway that will give you facts and figures about how homosexual marriage is bad. So after you watched them you would take it as fact then. Right? Becuase everything we see on TV is fact!! Except for things coming out of Dan Rathers mouth...he likes to use fake documents. Oh wait, did you forget about that? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 04:39:01 am by briman »
|
Logged
|
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) is a science of vague assumptions based on debatable figures derived from inconclusive experiments, performed by persons of doubtful mental capability with instruments of problematic accuracy.
Times I have been blown up: 2
Houses I have blown up: 2
|
|
|
|
Mnementh
|
|
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2005, 04:51:41 am » |
|
**sigh**
Simpletons trying to think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CycloWizard
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2005, 04:59:26 am » |
|
I still think you're very, very wrong, Cyclo. To the point where I honestly question your intelligence. But, I'm sure at this point the feeling is mutual. So, fair enough, agree to disagree. Guess we won't be meeting in Quebec. The pantsless wonder is questioning my intelligence? Why - because I used a word with more than three syllables? You have yet to address a single point that I've made, instead prancing around the issue and name-calling like a little kid. From this brief discussion, I can only surmise that your only cause for questioning my intelligence is that it is so far superior to your own that you can't comprehend it. nice reply... real nice
Your entire baseless point supports the BLOCKING of equality of human beings in our society. You can over-analize it anyway you want to. You call my point baseless, yet you can't say why? You can't answer the one question that I've repeatedly asked in this thread, nor can anyone else. On what grounds should homosexuals be granted benefits over, say, myself and my roommates? I've already clearly stated why marriage is NOT a right - it's a contract. If you're arguing this premise, feel free to do so, otherwise just answer the question or quit throwing out red herrings. Because they are PEOPLE and should have the same rights as anyone else? And in response Cyclo, I want your thoughts on my reason is wrong, and then I want some evidence of harm that same sex marriage causes? And c'mon, not having their own children should be a relief to you? Right? But don't celebrate too quickly, lesbian couples often impregnate each other with their spouse's willing sibling. So, your argument is that any people should have the same rights as anyone else? Fine. Unfortunately, marriage is not a right - it's a contract. Further, if it were a right as you purport, then I can marry all of my current roommates, my mother, my brothers, and my dad at the same time. We're all people, right? We should all be free to marry as we see fit. Further, we should all receive all the benefits that are accorded a married couple at this time, right? I've never argued that same sex marriage causes harm - that's your strawman, yet again. All of you have it set in your minds that anyone who opposes gay marriage is some sort of religious bigot. Now that I have presented a case without even considering ethical/religious considerations, you have nothing to say, so you distort my arguments to avoid addressing my points entirely. The entire debate is: what does a homosexual couple bring to the table such that we should bestow benefits upon them in the form of a marriage contract and all that it entails? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ScrotcH
BKP Team Leader
Administrator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 67561
|
|
« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2005, 05:07:35 am » |
|
"what does a homosexual couple bring to the table such that we should bestow benefits upon them in the form of a marriage contract and all that it entails?"
the same thing a heterosexual couple does, love and commitment to one another. what else ya got? I can call matlock to solve that one to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
but the sky is filled with light
can you see it?
all the black is really white
if you believe it
|
|
|
|
Merc248
|
|
« Reply #49 on: July 25, 2005, 05:56:46 am » |
|
Post
INSERT ANGRY DISAGREEMENT HERE |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CycloWizard
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2005, 06:04:10 am » |
|
"what does a homosexual couple bring to the table such that we should bestow benefits upon them in the form of a marriage contract and all that it entails?"
the same thing a heterosexual couple does, love and commitment to one another. what else ya got? I can call matlock to solve that one to. So, you want to base marriage on love and commitment? What exactly is the benefit society sees from this love and commitment? Are you willing to allow incestuous marriages, which may be just as loving and committed? Why or why not? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zeradul
|
|
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2005, 06:21:31 am » |
|
Zera, I can link to probably 25 episodes of that religious show that comes on after whose line is it anyway that will give you facts and figures about how homosexual marriage is bad. So after you watched them you would take it as fact then. Right? Nope, but if you were to watch my show, you'd see a real debate of the issue, both views, and then you'd see some of the people that this affects. So, your argument is that any people should have the same rights as anyone else? Fine. Unfortunately, marriage is not a right - it's a contract. Further, if it were a right as you purport, then I can marry all of my current roommates, my mother, my brothers, and my dad at the same time. We're all people, right? We should all be free to marry as we see fit. So you're saying you're worried about MARRIAGE FRAUD? Are you honestly worried about people somehow tricking the system for some legal benefit? If so what are those legal loopholes? - If not, WTF are you talking about? Marriage is a RIGHT. We have determined the need for marriage, and it is the legal union between two people, the RIGHT to get married is something not everyone has, in some cases it is for good reasons, like Mother/Son, or Brother/Sister, but there is genetic proof of problems with that, so what is the problem with allowing gay marriage? Just one problem is fine, and remember it has to be something that harms other people. Because in a free country it is up to you to do what you wish. All of you have it set in your minds that anyone who opposes gay marriage is some sort of religious bigot. Now that I have presented a case without even considering ethical/religious considerations, you have nothing to say, so you distort my arguments to avoid addressing my points entirely. I don't necessarily think you are a bigot, I guess I have failed to see any valid point within your argument. The entire debate is: what does a homosexual couple bring to the table such that we should bestow benefits upon them in the form of a marriage contract and all that it entails? What are those benefits, and since when is it the GOVERNMENT's job to determine who is worthy of marriage? If they ARE in charge of that then why do they let criminals marry, or alcoholics, because those people might raise criminal alcoholic children, while REAPING ALL OF THE MASSIVE BENEFITS of marriage. The fact is that it is NO BUSINESS OF THE STATE what two people choose to do, as long as it isn't criminal. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 06:36:17 am by Zeradul »
|
Logged
|
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
|
|
|
|
Zeradul
|
|
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2005, 06:25:27 am » |
|
So, you want to base marriage on love and commitment? What exactly is the benefit society sees from this love and commitment? Are you willing to allow incestuous marriages, which may be just as loving and committed? Why or why not? There is conclusive genetic evidence that supports legislation to not allow that. There's also all kinds of potential for child abuse issues when an abused child reaches legal age they might not be in any shape to make a real decision about marrying their abusive parent or sibling. There are too many problems with children and manipulation. Anyone else think it's odd chew isn't in this thread? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 06:42:27 am by Zeradul »
|
Logged
|
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
|
|
|
|
Stinger
|
|
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2005, 06:59:02 am » |
|
You know, there is a benefit to being conservative. Clarity of purpose. You have all of the convictions of anyone else, but no kinky sex to distract from your goals. Good job, guys. Keep up the "good fight" against something that would never negatively effect you in anyway, but means the world to other people who just want the same privilidges you enjoy.
I mean, fuck, who cares if they can't share their works insurance plan with their family, because their family isn't the same kind as yours? I mean, hell. Who cares if they can't spend the rest of their lives with eachother with the same rights and privilidges you do? So what if they can't file their taxes jointly, if they can't go out on a date with their partner without being treated like a freak in 48 states... Silly fags, rights are for heteros!
Believe what you want, guys. That's your right, and I wouldn't take it away from you. It's just severly fucked that you use your rights to advocate the loss of rights for others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CycloWizard
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2005, 07:04:40 am » |
|
So you're saying you're worried about MARRIAGE FRAUD? Are you honestly worried about people somehow tricking the system for some legal benefit? If so what are those legal loopholes? - If not, WTF are you talking about? No - once again, your statements here are a strawman (reference, since apparently you don't understand why your repeated use of this tactic is deplorable: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html ). I never mentioned fraud. I simply stated that if you want to make the claim that anyone should be able to marry as they see fit, then the marriages that I listed must also be allowed, primarily polygamy and incest. Marriage is a RIGHT. NO, marriage is NOT a right - it's a contract. Your repeated claims that it is a right don't make it so. If it is, then I can marry all of the people I listed in my previous post. I wouldn't have to pay for a marriage license. In fact, I wouldn't need a license to be married at all. I could simply be married by declaring myself as such. Instead, the parties involved must pay for the relevant license to receive the benefits related to the contract. So, clearly, marriage is NOT a right - it is a contract, as I have previously stated. We have determined the need for marriage, and it is the legal union between two people, the RIGHT to get married is something not everyone has, in some cases it is for good reasons, like Mother/Son, or Brother/Sister, but there is genetic proof of problems with that, so what is the problem with allowing gay marriage? Just one problem is fine, and remember it has to be something that harms other people. Because in a free country it is up to you to do what you wish. But if marriage is a right, then people can marry within their families. Rights are not restricted based on possible outcomes of their usage. For example, you cannot incarcerate me simply because I could kill someone. That is an obvious violation of my right to liberty based solely on one possible outcome of my life. If mother/son or brother/sister love each other and marriage is a right, then you cannot possibly deny their marriage. However, if marriage is a contract, then you can based on society's expectations of the outcome of said relationship. For example, if the Cardinals sign Pujols for another year for a zillion dollars, they expect that he'll hit 40+ home runs, get a buttload of base hits, RBIs, and so forth. These are all possible outcomes of his continued play for the ball club. It's also possible that he'll never get another base hit in his career. However, based on experience, the Cardinals would probably take that chance. On the other hand, if it were his right to be signed, then the Cardinals would have to sign him even if he became a quadruplegic in a motorcycle accident in the offseason. Hopefully this illustrates the difference between a contract and a right to your satisfaction. I don't necessarily think you are a bigot, I guess I have failed to see any valid point within your argument. That's because I haven't actually made an argument. I've simply asked for your justification for changing the status quo, which you have not yet given. Instead, you've attempted to confound the issue by insisting that marriage is a right, which it clearly is not. What are those benefits, and since when is it the GOVERNMENT's job to determine who is worthy of marriage? If they ARE in charge of that then why do they let criminals marry, or alcoholics, because those people might raise criminal alcoholic children, while REAPING ALL OF THE MASSIVE BENEFITS of marriage. This is exactly why I said in my first post that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. However, given that it is and that this is unlikely to change, there must be justification for the granting of benefits with a marriage license. I've put forth some points in favor of why heterosexual marriages are granted benefits (not exhaustive and certainly debatable, but there it is). I've yet to see a single argument as to why society should enter into a contract with a homosexual couple. The fact is that it is NO BUSINESS OF THE STATE what two people choose to do, as long as it isn't criminal. I couldn't agree any more. Of course, your primary failing is that this is a debate regarding the criminality of homosexual marriage, so this statement is completely irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CycloWizard
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2005, 07:07:04 am » |
|
You know, there is a benefit to being conservative. Clarity of purpose. You have all of the convictions of anyone else, but no kinky sex to distract from your goals. Good job, guys. Keep up the "good fight" against something that would never negatively effect you in anyway, but means the world to other people who just want the same privilidges you enjoy. I mean, fuck, who cares if they can't share their works insurance plan with their family, because their family isn't the same kind as yours? I mean, hell. Who cares if they can't spend the rest of their lives with eachother with the same rights and privilidges you do? So what if they can't file their taxes jointly, if they can't go out on a date with their partner without being treated like a freak in 48 states... Silly fags, rights are for heteros! Believe what you want, guys. That's your right, and I wouldn't take it away from you. It's just severly fucked that you use your rights to advocate the loss of rights for others. It will most definitely affect me. I'll be paying tax dollars to subsidize a contractual agreement between the homosexual couple and society, including myself, from which I receive absolutely no benefit. That's simply an absurd proposal, and I definitely have a right to speak out against having my money stripped from me and distributed to a party that does nothing in return. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mnementh
|
|
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2005, 07:46:37 am » |
|
First off, Cyclo, marriage is not a contract between the couple and the government, no matter how many times you say it is. If anything, it is a legal contract between the two people being married, and therefore there is no innate expectation of benefit from that contract to anyone outside of that relationship. The following excerpt was taken from the Legal Information Institue at Cornell Univeristy http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/: "In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same." So, without the expectation of some kind of 'benefit' from married gay couples since it really has nothing to do with you, your point starts to collapse. And the simple fact that they can't have kids isn't a detraction, to hearken back to my earlier point about there being more than enough kids available out there for adoption, which if gay couples were allowed to do, then there would be a real benefit they could make to society. Furthermore, you claim that your tax dollars are subsidizing my marriage, how exactly are they doing that? I pay taxes, a lot of taxes mind you, and I don't receive services from the government that I wouldn't if weren't married. So, what extra benefits would gays receive if they were allowed to married that are directly paid for by your tax dollars? When you apply for a marriage license, those applying have to pay for it. When you get married, those being married have to pay for it. What exactly are your tax dollars subsidizing? Also, why do you have some overwhelming desire to deny somebody something just because you don't stand to gain from it? Dude, that is so fucking selfish that it is shameful. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dusty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2005, 07:55:51 am » |
|
This has gone on long enough! I am here! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 07:57:24 am by dusty »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zeradul
|
|
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2005, 08:37:28 am » |
|
So you're saying you're worried about MARRIAGE FRAUD? Are you honestly worried about people somehow tricking the system for some legal benefit? If so what are those legal loopholes? - If not, WTF are you talking about? No - once again, your statements here are a strawman (reference, since apparently you don't understand why your repeated use of this tactic is deplorable: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html ). Gotcha! See, I said IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN, if not WHAT DO YOU MEAN? and again you escaped explaining yourself. So Quote this and explain yourself: What problem is presented by allowing gay marriage? PLEASE respond this time. I never mentioned fraud. I simply stated that if you want to make the claim that anyone should be able to marry as they see fit, then the marriages that I listed must also be allowed, primarily polygamy and incest. You didn't mention fraud, but you didn't mention ANY reason. I on the other hand DID mention PLENTY of reasons why incest should not be allowed. Polygamy is a completely different discussion, right now we're discussing the rights of two people to decide to and then be allowed to legally marry. NO, marriage is NOT a right - it's a contract. Your repeated claims that it is a right don't make it so. If it is, then I can marry all of the people I listed in my previous post. I wouldn't have to pay for a marriage license. So now are you really saying that rights are always free of paying money, or signing your name? Because we have the right to bear arms, yet I still have to buy my own guns and ammo. See the 4 parts of this analogy? People have the right to bear arms, just as people have the right to choose who they marry. You must buy your own guns and pay for your own marriage license. If mother/son or brother/sister love each other and marriage is a right, then you cannot possibly deny their marriage. Not true. Rights aren't wholly universal like that, for example, felons cannot VOTE, drunks cannot drive, minors cannot buy guns, and siblings cannot marry. All of those typical freedoms are restricted when it comes to the imminent and very likely outcome that we deem statistically likely. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." For each of those examples the pursuit of happiness is infringed, which is a right. And we ALLOW those rights to be infringed because we can determine a real potential problem if they are allowed to happen. I know that is from the Declaration of Independence, and you can continue to debate whether it is a right or not, but I don't give a damn. FREEDOM and LIBERTY allows individuals the RIGHT to do whatever they see fit, and if that is get married and there is no evidence of any problem associated with that, then the government should NOT be allowed to stop it. For example, if the Cardinals sign Pujols for another year for a zillion dollars, they expect that he'll hit 40+ home runs, get a buttload of base hits, RBIs, and so forth. These are all possible outcomes of his continued play for the ball club. It's also possible that he'll never get another base hit in his career. However, based on experience, the Cardinals would probably take that chance. On the other hand, if it were his right to be signed, then the Cardinals would have to sign him even if he became a quadruplegic in a motorcycle accident in the offseason. Great analogy, but now consider that we had a LAW not allowing Michael Jordan to play baseball. The government actually stepped in and determined that he was not allowed not play baseball because HE plays basketball. Michael Jordan knows that he plays basketball, but still wants to play baseball. Now, is it the government's place to determine if he CAN or not? NO, it's the WHITE SOX job to figure that out. That's because I haven't actually made an argument. I've simply asked for your justification for changing the status quo, which you have not yet given. Instead, you've attempted to confound the issue by insisting that marriage is a right, which it clearly is not. You are going to try to claim I have confounded the issue when you admit to have not making an argument yet? It's time to change the status quo because our citizens are asking for it to be changed. There's no harm done, and the government's job is to allow us to do what we want. I've put forth some points in favor of why heterosexual marriages are granted benefits (not exhaustive and certainly debatable, but there it is). I've yet to see a single argument as to why society should enter into a contract with a homosexual couple. Nobody is asking society to enter into any contract. Marriage is a legal union between two people, and the government merely recognizes them as a single legal entity. The benefits of that union are not substantially different than the benefits any citizen has. There is no substantial positive or negative to 'society' I'll be paying tax dollars to subsidize a contractual agreement between the homosexual couple and society, including myself, from which I receive absolutely no benefit. Is this REALLY your argument on the issue? Please list the ways that marriage takes YOUR tax dollars. Then list how heterosexual marriages of people you've never met benefits YOU??? WTF?? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
|
|
|
|
briman
|
|
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2005, 09:49:39 am » |
|
wait a minute, does it say anywhere in the bill of rights that marriage is a right??
or are you just assuming, that to be happy with someone, you need to marry them?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) is a science of vague assumptions based on debatable figures derived from inconclusive experiments, performed by persons of doubtful mental capability with instruments of problematic accuracy.
Times I have been blown up: 2
Houses I have blown up: 2
|
|
|
|
