Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

New York approves Same *** Marriage.Follow

#52 Jun 27 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
The more interesting aspect of this IMO is how unequally "equal protection" is applied.
While I doubt you actually find that the most interesting aspect given your arguments, but I agree that equal protection is often unequally applied.
____________________________
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

#53 Jun 27 2011 at 1:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The more interesting aspect of this IMO is how unequally "equal protection" is applied.
While I doubt you actually find that the most interesting aspect given your arguments, but I agree that equal protection is often unequally applied.


It's not just unequal, but somewhat arbitrary as well. If the number of first cousins involved in sexual relationships were great enough to build into a voting block, we'd be hearing the same folks arguing for *** marriage insisting that first cousin's rights were being violated with just as much passion and certainty as they are today for *** couples. There is no standard being used. Which is scary as ****.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Jun 27 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
You're so f*cking stupid. You know why gov'ts never considered same-*** relationships until recently? Because, until recently, same-*** relationships didn't exist in the public world. There was no large-scale push for *** rights until the early 70s, and no large-scale opposition to *** rights until the late 70s.

At that time, *** male relationships weren't common even in *** culture. They were VASTLY more common in ******* culture, but those communities were preoccupied with standard women's rights and weren't in a position to start fighting for rights as a couple.

The 80s and 90s, largely due to increasing acceptance of *** culture outside of cities, as well as the AIDS epidemic, shifted more to a monogamous system. Suddenly, gov'ts were faced with the question of how to deal with same-*** couples on a large scale. Thus began the fight over marriage rights.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#55 Jun 27 2011 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The more interesting aspect of this IMO is how unequally "equal protection" is applied.
While I doubt you actually find that the most interesting aspect given your arguments, but I agree that equal protection is often unequally applied.


It's not just unequal, but somewhat arbitrary as well. If the number of first cousins involved in sexual relationships were great enough to build into a voting block, we'd be hearing the same folks arguing for *** marriage insisting that first cousin's rights were being violated with just as much passion and certainty as they are today for *** couples. There is no standard being used. Which is scary as ****.

You just lost me. I'm not getting on that crazy train with you.
____________________________
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

#56 Jun 27 2011 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE TOASTER ARGUMENT!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 Jun 27 2011 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Really? The state says "In order to be married, you have to do X, Y, and Z, and comply with these set of contractual agreements, and jump through these hoops", and you don't see that as the state telling people how to live their lives? You honestly don't realize that for thousands of years people got married without any state involvement at all? It's only been in the past century or so that anyone but the wealthy/nobility ever involved government in their marriages.


I see that people said, "Hey, we want this stuff for being married, it's only fair!" So the state responded with, "Ok, we can offer you this stuff and these protections, but you should let us know who you're marrying. Here's the best way to do that."

Then other tax paying American citizens said, "Oh, wait, that's not fair. I should be able to marry this consenting adult who is [insert illegal marriage issue here]. Make it so!!"

gbaji wrote:
Yet today, we have people not only accepting that the government can and should tell you what a marriage is or isn't, but demanding that it do so for them in a way that it never did before. I'm sorry, but that's freaking insane. And then to label such meddling as a "right" just adds icing on top. I've got a right for you to require that I enter into a state contract in order to be married to my partner in a relationship within which the state has no interest or business!


Blame that on the SCOTUS, who said it's a right when people wanted to discriminate against interracial couples.


gbaji wrote:
Yeah. That makes a boatload of sense. *** marriage hasn't been a state issue in the past precisely because the state hasn't felt any need to get itself involved in managing homosexual relationships (because they don't create kids, no matter how much some of you want to pretend otherwise). So for some bizarre reason the *** folks have gotten jealous that they don't get to have the government telling them how to live their lives and demand it for themselves? Lol! I just always find this whole issue absurd and hysterical and kinda sad as well. It shows just how incredibly upside down some people's (a lot of people) view of the role of government in society has become.


Smiley: laugh Smiley: lol

No, same-*** marriage hasn't been legal because it's considered immoral and against the Christian right. Nice try, though.
#58 Jun 27 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not just unequal, but somewhat arbitrary as well. If the number of first cousins involved in sexual relationships were great enough to build into a voting block, we'd be hearing the same folks arguing for *** marriage insisting that first cousin's rights were being violated with just as much passion and certainty as they are today for *** couples. There is no standard being used. Which is scary as ****.


Yeah, it's insane that when society wants something, they fight for it. INSANE!!!!

Smiley: looney
#59 Jun 27 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
It's funny, because he grounds his argument about marriage in the idea of "this is how it has always been and that's why it is this way." Because that's the only possible defense he has for his "for the children" argument (which is still wrong, because it's based on a wrong assumption).

Let's carry that argument to his cousin reference.

Fact of the matter is that marriage between first cousins is still extremely common in the Western World. And, historically, it was extremely common everywhere.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#60 Jun 27 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not just unequal, but somewhat arbitrary as well. If the number of first cousins involved in sexual relationships were great enough to build into a voting block, we'd be hearing the same folks arguing for *** marriage insisting that first cousin's rights were being violated with just as much passion and certainty as they are today for *** couples.

Which has nothing at all to do with court findings about Equal Protection.

In fact, given that it's been previously determined that states may prohibit marriage in cases of significant and exceptional state interest, it would be completely inappropriate for the courts to issue any sort of blanket ruling* of "Everyone gets married under Equal Protection!". If you're concerned about first cousin marriage on a national scale, get started on your court case.


*This does not preclude using earlier cases as precedent where appropriate.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 2:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Jun 27 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? The state says "In order to be married, you have to do X, Y, and Z, and comply with these set of contractual agreements, and jump through these hoops", and you don't see that as the state telling people how to live their lives? You honestly don't realize that for thousands of years people got married without any state involvement at all? It's only been in the past century or so that anyone but the wealthy/nobility ever involved government in their marriages.


I see that people said, "Hey, we want this stuff for being married, it's only fair!" So the state responded with, "Ok, we can offer you this stuff and these protections, but you should let us know who you're marrying. Here's the best way to do that."


You should really study the history of marriage laws in the US. That's not how it happened at all. What happened is that most people just married in a church and were done with it. Or, they just started living together and called themselves married and were done with it. It was purely social. The community you live in knew who was who and that was all that was needed.

The government came along and said: "Hey! We need to keep track of who's married to whom, and who's responsible for who's kids. So we want everyone who's married to file a piece of paper so we can track you people".

And some people complied. But many didn't because it was a hassle.

So then the government said: "Ok. We'll give you guys some goodies if you'd pretty please make sure to file some kind of paper with us so we know who's married to whom? Here's some tax breaks. And we'll make it easier to buy property. And we'll toss in a toaster!" (this is what you were talking about, right?).

And some more people complied. But some still didn't.

So the government, cause it doesn't like people not doing what it wants, started passing common law marriages. So now, even if you never filed a piece of paper with the government, but you were living with someone of the opposite *** "as husband and wife" for X number of years, the government would just legally assume you were married! Cause we want to make sure everyone's accounted for, right?


Those last two didn't necessarily occur in that same order in every state btw, but that's basically what happened. It's abundantly apparent (obvious even) that the motivation of the government in this is to track people who are in marriage relationships, most specifically with the intent of ensuring that children are account for. Absent this, a man could father children in one state and move to another and no one could do anything about it. Heck. He could be "married" in multiple states to multiple wives.


That's how we got to where we are now.

Quote:
Then other tax paying American citizens said, "Oh, wait, that's not fair. I should be able to marry this consenting adult who is [insert illegal marriage issue here]. Make it so!!"


They were already marrying. The "problem" was that they weren't filing pieces of paper telling the government who they were marrying, so the government couldn't hold them responsible for children, property in common, etc. It was all about making the government (and the courts) jobs easier. You are naive if you think that this was done because people getting married felt that if they weren't able to file a piece of paper in a court house somehow that their marriage wasn't really a marriage.

That's what people today think after a century or so of being taught that. Gee. I wonder what vested interest there would be in teaching people this? Not the individuals.

Quote:
Blame that on the SCOTUS, who said it's a right when people wanted to discriminate against interracial couples.


But not interracial couples of the same ***. Surely you can see that there's a difference between the sexual makeup of a couple and the racial makeup of a couple? Please tell me you can see this!


If you still doubt is has to do with children, just look at the frequency with which the question of children of mixed-race couples came up during the interracial marriage debate (on both sides). The states issue with regard to marriage has always been about children produced by the couple. Everything else is stuff tossed in on top in order to obtain that. I just don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks in.

Quote:
No, same-*** marriage hasn't been legal because it's considered immoral and against the Christian right. Nice try, though.



Same *** marriage isn't "illegal" now. Nice try with the whole "I don't know the difference between something being illegal and something not being rewarded".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Jun 27 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You should really study the history of marriage laws in the US.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol
Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh
Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol

Welcome back, emoticons!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Jun 27 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
So then the government said: "Ok. We'll give you guys some goodies if you'd pretty please make sure to file some kind of paper with us so we know who's married to whom? Here's some tax breaks. And we'll make it easier to buy property. And we'll toss in a toaster!" (this is what you were talking about, right?).
Smiley: lol Sorry, I couldn't read it any further. So how does this little line here, tie into people only get goodies from the government to have kids?
____________________________
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

#64 Jun 27 2011 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
Smiley: banghead

You haven't made a case for why the state's interest in marriage had ANYTHING to do with children.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#65 Jun 27 2011 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
What Joph said.
#66 Jun 27 2011 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
As a wise man once said, they want more living babies to make more dead soldiers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Jun 27 2011 at 1:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
idiggory wrote:
It's funny, because he grounds his argument about marriage in the idea of "this is how it has always been and that's why it is this way."


Huh? I have *never* made this argument. My argument about marriage is that government's have an interest in getting heterosexual couples to marry so as to reduce its own load with regard to the children heterosexual couples will produce. It's not "it's always been this way". In fact, quite the opposite. Government's involvement in marriage is a relatively recent thing. For most of history, it didn't involve itself at all. Wealthy people wrote up marriage contracts because they had property and inheritance issues to deal with. Most normal people just got purely social marriages recognized only by their local community and/or their church.

So no. That's not it. If you're going to argue against me, at least take some time to read what I'm saying.

Quote:
Because that's the only possible defense he has for his "for the children" argument (which is still wrong, because it's based on a wrong assumption).


Nope. You're completely wrong.

Quote:
Let's carry that argument to his cousin reference.

Fact of the matter is that marriage between first cousins is still extremely common in the Western World. And, historically, it was extremely common everywhere.


Yet, not in the US. Why do you suppose that is? Don't just spout facts, but spend a bit of noodle time trying to think about what they might just mean.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Jun 27 2011 at 1:43 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
ONE STEP CLOSER TO ESKE'S LAW


Yes, I'm taking credit for first documenting it.

Eske's Law wrote:
"As an online discussion on Same-*** Marriage grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving marriage to toasters approaches 1 (100%)"


See also:

Eske's Corollary of Marriageable Toasters wrote:
"The use of the toaster as the predominant appliance in fallacious Same-*** Marriage analogies indicates that humans find the toaster to be the most marriageable appliance."


Please cite accordingly.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 3:44pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#69 Jun 27 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,968 posts
idiggory wrote:
I went to rate Locke up. First my pointer was in the top-right corner, and I thought "oh right," then I found the place the buttons were supposed to be and was like "oh... right."

Smiley: laugh
Fun admin fact; the rate-up button is just below the Nuke button. If one of your posts disappears unexpectedly, just assume I meant to rate it up Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#70 Jun 27 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
Gbaji, try and wrap your head around this.

1. You are making an argument for why the institution of marriage is treated as X by the gov't, and doing so by referencing the start of when X was the case.

2. If you wish to use this argument to defend the current state of marriage against people who, in your eyes, wish to change it, you must defend X.

3. Since your entire argument is grounded in the past history of marriage, you are making the claim that marriage should not evolve.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#71 Jun 27 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
Quote:
Fun admin fact; the rate-up button is just below the Nuke button. If one of your posts disappears unexpectedly, just assume I meant to rate it up


That seems like bad design...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#72 Jun 27 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
idiggory wrote:
Since your entire argument is grounded in the past history of marriage, you are making the claim that marriage should not evolve.
con·serv·a·tive
   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
#73 Jun 27 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
idiggory wrote:
Smiley: banghead

You haven't made a case for why the state's interest in marriage had ANYTHING to do with children.



What's the state's interest then? Just to be nice? Lol!


I've stated mine, and I'm not the only one

Quote:
In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.


This guy makes essentially the exact argument I've been making for years.

And this guy

Quote:
Government's interest in marriage is based on marriage being the foundation of a prosperous society. And "marriage" in that regard is the biological conjoining of opposite-*** partners, who will then procreate and raise offspring under their care and nurture.

Society requires children to continue. So obviously government wants to encourage procreation. But if children are abandoned, it creates a burden on government that government is ill-suited to handle, witness the many horror stories regarding orphanages.



This guy certainly assumes that procreation is the state's interest as well



Google the state interest in marriage if you want. You'll be hard pressed to find any site that doesn't discuss procreation and the government's need to manage it within society. But by all means, continue to bury your head in the sand, deny the obvious, and insist that since the obvious doesn't support your cart-before-horse argument, it must be wrong and there must be some other reason.


If there is, what is it? Seriously. You all jump on this and insist that I must be wrong, but no one ever seems to be able to give some other reason. What is the state's interest in marriage if it's not procreation? It's not just property. We have zillions of other contracts which manage that just fine. Can anyone provide an alternative explanation?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Jun 27 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Because we need more soldiers in the fight against Communism!

[:stares boldly into the distance:]
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#75 Jun 27 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You all jump on this and insist that I must be wrong, but no one ever seems to be able to give some other reason.

You're just being intentionally dishonest. I mean, it's one thing to be incorrect or have a different opinion but this is just a straight lie and you know it. You may not agree with the reasons but to deny that anyone has provided them is pretty pathetic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Jun 27 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You all jump on this and insist that I must be wrong, but no one ever seems to be able to give some other reason.

You're just being intentionally dishonest. I mean, it's one thing to be incorrect or have a different opinion but this is just a straight lie and you know it. You may not agree with the reasons but to deny that anyone has provided them is pretty pathetic.


It's more about how he's wording it that's dishonest, to me.

"What's the state's interest in marriage?" is not the same question as "Why does the state offer benefits for marriage?"
#77 Jun 27 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
No one has EVER denied that there has often been a correlation between marriage and children, but it's so obviously wrong to reduce it to that. Your argument furthermore fails because couples can raise children together without the existence of marriage, and marriage is even given to sterile couples (such as those including post-op transsexuals).

The most important problem, though, is found in the ******** spewed in the first passage:

Quote:
Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.


Why is it a ridiculous argument? Because you are taking a specific cultural group and comparing them to other groups that lack identities, for one. More importantly, you are treating these other marriage laws like they obviously don't include civil rights violations, which definitely isn't the case.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#78 Jun 27 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
idiggory wrote:
Gbaji, try and wrap your head around this.

1. You are making an argument for why the institution of marriage is treated as X by the gov't, and doing so by referencing the start of when X was the case.

2. If you wish to use this argument to defend the current state of marriage against people who, in your eyes, wish to change it, you must defend X.

3. Since your entire argument is grounded in the past history of marriage, you are making the claim that marriage should not evolve.


No I'm not. My argument isn't about "marriage" at all, but about "government involvement in marriage", which is not the same thing. Marriage can evolve all it wants, but if the government chooses to involve itself in effectively subsidizing marriage, we ought to have some idea of what is being subsidized and why in order to determine ongoing government involvement.

What's happened is that the social concept of marriage has evolved in ways which no longer fit into the state interest of subsidizing it in the first place. If we accept the premise that the purpose of subsidizing marriage was to reduce the number of children born to heterosexual couples outside of marriage, then we have to also conclude that applying that same subsidy to *** couples is absurd. It's not about civil rights. It's about what relationships the state has a vested interest in encouraging. *** marriage clearly falls well outside that range.


It's not about hating or liking *** couples. I reject the very concept that we should be determining who gets some government subsidy based solely on whether we like or dislike that group of people. We should determine that based on state interest in some outcome. Otherwise, the government just becomes a vending machine that every group of people fights over to see who can get the most money. I happen to think that's a moronically stupid way to do things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Jun 27 2011 at 3:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You all jump on this and insist that I must be wrong, but no one ever seems to be able to give some other reason.

You're just being intentionally dishonest. I mean, it's one thing to be incorrect or have a different opinion but this is just a straight lie and you know it. You may not agree with the reasons but to deny that anyone has provided them is pretty pathetic.


Except when I ask you, all you ever seem to do is reply with reasons why the couple wants the benefits, but not why the state has an interest in giving them to them. It's not just about me disliking or disagreeing with alternative explanations, but that the alternatives presented don't actually match the criteria I'm asking for.


Tell me what the state's interest in subsidizing marriage is. Not why those who receive the benefits want them, but why the rest of us have a vested reason to give them to those couples. Can you do that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Jun 27 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Why must we fight?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#81 Jun 27 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Why must we fight?

In-group out-group bias.
____________________________
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
#82 Jun 27 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
idiggory wrote:
No one has EVER denied that there has often been a correlation between marriage and children, but it's so obviously wrong to reduce it to that.


But it's correct to always keep that original correlation in mind, right? Because otherwise, we might lose sight of why we bothered providing benefits to married couples in the first place. Just like what's going on with the *** marriage argument.

Quote:
Your argument furthermore fails because couples can raise children together without the existence of marriage, and marriage is even given to sterile couples (such as those including post-op transsexuals).


Those don't cause my argument to fail. That's like arguing that there's no reason to put tires on your car because tires sometimes fail anyway. Or there's no point in building codes because they still sometimes fall apart, or catch fire, or otherwise cause injury to those within/nearby them. You're trying to make an argument from exception. That's a weak argument at best since those exceptions don't eliminate the value of the subsidy from a broader social perspective. Yes. Some people will raise children outside of marriage just fine. And some people will qualify for marriage who don't really need it. But the marriage benefits are there for the much larger number of people who don't fall into those exceptions.

Quote:
The most important problem, though, is found in the bullsh*t spewed in the first passage:

Quote:
Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.


Why is it a ridiculous argument?


I didn't make that specific argument btw. You're arguing with some professor, not me. But I'll play along.


Quote:
Because you are taking a specific cultural group and comparing them to other groups that lack identities, for one.


Lolirony! Didn't I just talk about this? So if some other group gains an "identity" (basically is formed into a political/voting block), then suddenly it qualifies to have the rights it otherwise shouldn't have? So you're basically admitting that I'm right that from the liberal point of view, the choice about who should get marriage subsidies is purely arbitrary. It's about who you've been told should have them.


So if first cousins form a strong enough block, you'll argue they should have the right to marry. But until they do, you wont care? It's nice to see that you're such a free thinking individual! :)


Quote:
More importantly, you are treating these other marriage laws like they obviously don't include civil rights violations, which definitely isn't the case.


It isn't? When did someone, anyone, have a "right" to receive a government benefit? This goes back to a fundamental difference of opinion on rights between classical and social liberalism, which is a whole different argument. But I think it's worth noting that exactly the negatives of social liberalism are present here.

One of the arguments against social liberalism is exactly that "arbitrary benefits" thing I spoke of earlier. When you adopt social liberalism, you abandon any sort of consistent mechanism by which you can determine what government should or should not do. It becomes entirely about groups of people competing for benefits from the state. And that's all about which groups get the best/biggest lobbying going. It also eliminates any breaking effect to prevent a slippery slope. Once today's "group in need" gets what they want, the social liberalists will move right on to the next group. Once you turn the concept of "rights" from something government doesn't do to you, to something government does for you, there is no end to the number of rights you can demand, nor to the number of groups of people who can demand them.


It's a stupid way to run a society and is ultimately doomed to failure. Bit of a side point, but there you have it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Jun 27 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,943 posts
gbaji wrote:
Tell me what the state's interest in subsidizing marriage is. Not why those who receive the benefits want them, but why the rest of us have a vested reason to give them to those couples. Can you do that?


I'm pretty sure it's been said before, you just don't agree with it.

Because a married couple, regardless of genders, take on certain roles. These roles can include providing care to one another. The government taking interest in these marriages, which provide stability for those involved, helps provide relief for a couple who for example has one spouse stay at home taking care of the household while the other goes and works. By filing jointly the one working is allowed to make more and stay in a lower tax bracket. Effectively allowing the working spouse to earn not only their money, but the money of the spouse not working, and not have to pay more taxes. The spouse is not penalized for providing for his/her wife/husband. Regardless of whether or not they have children or dependents.

Now go on about blah blah and bleh bleh, but don't say people haven't given you reasons...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#84 Jun 27 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except when I ask you, all you ever seem to do is reply with reasons why the couple wants the benefits, but not why the state has an interest in giving them to them.

Again, you're just lying. You know this isn't true and I can't believe there's a single person who has bothered to follow these threads who is unaware that you're being intentionally deceitful right now.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Jun 27 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Just curious, do single mothers get tax breaks as well? How about single fathers? That is, do they get the same benefits that married couples do?

How about couples that aren't married but live together and have children?

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 6:20pm by Nilatai
____________________________
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
#86 Jun 27 2011 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,943 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Just curious, do single mothers get tax breaks as well? How about single fathers? That is, do they get the same benefits that married couples do?

How about couples that aren't married but live together and have children?

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 6:20pm by Nilatai



I'm no tax expert, but the benefits dealing with marriage and with dependents and child deductions are separate.

(But according to gbaji, it's all about the children. Who cares about the well-being of the two adults who are now working/living/providing for each other.)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#87 Jun 27 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Just curious, do single mothers get tax breaks as well? How about single fathers? That is, do they get the same benefits that married couples do?

How about couples that aren't married but live together and have children?

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 6:20pm by Nilatai


No matter your filing status, you get a tax break for having a kid.

ETA: The part about living together but having a kid, I'm not sure on. Only one person can claim the kid as a dependent and get that tax break, so I'm not sure how that works out.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 5:25pm by Belkira
#88 Jun 27 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
So gbaji has no argument then? Excellent.
____________________________
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
#89 Jun 27 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
Quote:
So if first cousins form a strong enough block, you'll argue they should have the right to marry. But until they do, you wont care? It's nice to see that you're such a free thinking individual! :)


It's fun to take a single reason I offered and act like it's the whole argument. Dumbass.

A. Yes, I think there's a difference between groups that possess an identity and groups that do not. I never once said that they deserve unequal treatment by the gov't. However, identities aren't a matter of population--population only helps them grow. Furthermore, my point is that an identity is something that can be oppressed.

Besides, I've got the cousin-lover's backs already. I'm all for the abolition of laws banning cousin marriage. I personally find it weird, but if they don't, power to them.


Quote:
It isn't? When did someone, anyone, have a "right" to receive a government benefit? This goes back to a fundamental difference of opinion on rights between classical and social liberalism, which is a whole different argument. But I think it's worth noting that exactly the negatives of social liberalism are present here.

One of the arguments against social liberalism is exactly that "arbitrary benefits" thing I spoke of earlier. When you adopt social liberalism, you abandon any sort of consistent mechanism by which you can determine what government should or should not do. It becomes entirely about groups of people competing for benefits from the state. And that's all about which groups get the best/biggest lobbying going. It also eliminates any breaking effect to prevent a slippery slope. Once today's "group in need" gets what they want, the social liberalists will move right on to the next group. Once you turn the concept of "rights" from something government doesn't do to you, to something government does for you, there is no end to the number of rights you can demand, nor to the number of groups of people who can demand them.


It's a stupid way to run a society and is ultimately doomed to failure. Bit of a side point, but there you have it.
[/quote]

Marriage is NOT A ******* BENEFIT you dumbass. No one cares if you view it that way, you are wrong. Marriage COMES with benefits right now, yes. But it is NOT reducible to the benefits. If it came with absolutely no perks (as I think it should), I would still argue the case for *** marriage.

The only reason *** rights advocates need to argue about it regarding the benefits is that its what ******** like you always turn to when trying to ignore the civil rights issue.

And the "slippery slope" of equality is that the social groups in power no longer get to control the groups they are oppressing. So I REALLY don't accept that as a valid argument.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#90 Jun 27 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Is there a B.?
____________________________
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

#91 Jun 27 2011 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
That's a very good question.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#92 Jun 27 2011 at 4:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Tell me what the state's interest in subsidizing marriage is. Not why those who receive the benefits want them, but why the rest of us have a vested reason to give them to those couples. Can you do that?


I'm pretty sure it's been said before, you just don't agree with it.

Because a married couple, regardless of genders, take on certain roles. These roles can include providing care to one another. The government taking interest in these marriages, which provide stability for those involved, helps provide relief for a couple who for example has one spouse stay at home taking care of the household while the other goes and works. By filing jointly the one working is allowed to make more and stay in a lower tax bracket. Effectively allowing the working spouse to earn not only their money, but the money of the spouse not working, and not have to pay more taxes. The spouse is not penalized for providing for his/her wife/husband. Regardless of whether or not they have children or dependents.


Most of that is just a list of the benefits themselves. Yes, it helps a couple where one is working and the other is taking care of the household. And you mentioned that the government takes an interest in this, but my question is why does the government take an interest in this? What does the government gain by doing this?

Quote:
Now go on about blah blah and bleh bleh, but don't say people haven't given you reasons...



You haven't given a reason for the thing I asked though. You've told me that the parent has an interest in the child receiving a cookie, and then elaborated on all the ways in which that cookie benefits the child, but not explained at all why the parent might choose to give the cookie to the child in the first place.


What is the state's interest in this? Why does it care to provide a benefit to couples in which one works and the other stays home and takes care of the household? It's like you get halfway there, then realize that the answer will support what position and balk at following through.


Take that last step. The reason the state does this is because if they can get more couples to marry, then more children will be cared for by a two parent household, and those children will be more likely to be benefits to society rather than burdens. Obviously, this only makes sense if the couple in question might produce children in the first place. And that's why you balk at following through the whole logic. You don't want to disprove your own position.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Jun 27 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Is there a B.?
You don't want a B.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Jun 27 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
I'm no tax expert, but the benefits dealing with marriage and with dependents and child deductions are separate.


Belkira the Tulip wrote:
No matter your filing status, you get a tax break for having a kid.


Nilatai wrote:
So gbaji has no argument then? Excellent.


No. This supports my argument that marriage isn't just about helping people who have children, but rather to encourage marriage among those who might produce children. As stated above, benefits for marriage are separate from benefits just for having a dependent. Amazing that you guys can see this, but not see the significance of this. It's why we don't just wait until people have children and then provide benefits to them. We already do that in another form. The marriage benefits are about getting people to marry.


It really shouldn't take so much mental strain to see why we might want to get people to marry and why that reason doesn't apply to *** couples. But in typical cart-before-horse illogic, you guys don't want to see the plain truth when it counters something you've already accepted.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Jun 27 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
Quote:
Most of that is just a list of the benefits themselves. Yes, it helps a couple where one is working and the other is taking care of the household. And you mentioned that the government takes an interest in this, but my question is why does the government take an interest in this? What does the government gain by doing this?


It seriously disturbs me that you evaluate every little thing in terms of gov't benefit.

Guess what, the gov't gained nothing material by abolishing slavery. Literally. The economic systems of the south crashed, which negatively impacted the north, which decreased revenue all around. And, even when the economy recovered, things were vastly less productive than they had been before (which, fortunately, was ended by the I.Rev. being imported in from Europe).

The fight over slavery led to hundreds of thousands of lost lives, huge political divisions, tons of money wasted in waging war against their own nation and massive drops in tax revenues.

And it was worthwhile.

[EDIT]

Gbaji, you do realize that (wrong though your argument is) you've never actually tried to substantiate it, right? You've never given any reason why the gov't should take an interest in granting benefits to people who might produce children.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 6:53pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#96 Jun 27 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,943 posts
gbaji wrote:
why does the government take an interest in this?


Quote:
which provide stability for those involved,


I guess I really need to spell it out. By promoting the stable environment of a marriage, regardless of whether or not children or dependents are involved, the government is promoting a stable environment for it's citizens. I do believe that a stable social environment is better for a government and it's population as a whole.


Quote:
As stated above, benefits for marriage are separate from benefits just for having a dependent. Amazing that you guys can see this, but not see the significance of this. It's why we don't just wait until people have children and then provide benefits to them. We already do that in another form. The marriage benefits are about getting people to marry.


Or, benefits for marriage and children are separate because there is a social benefit, beyond the environment for children, to a marriage. A benefit for the two involved in the marriage...

You are so stuck on this idea that marriage revolves around children, completely ignoring the many non-child related benefits of being married, and how it's somehow impossible to determine if there are children or not, so they just give them to all capable... yet we do provide benefits to those that have children, and can determine that they have children or not... Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 7:13pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#97 Jun 27 2011 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You've told me that the parent has an interest in the child receiving a cookie, and then elaborated on all the ways in which that cookie benefits the child, but not explained at all why the parent might choose to give the cookie to the child in the first place.

What is the state's interest in this? Why does it care to provide a benefit to couples in which one works and the other stays home and takes care of the household? It's like you get halfway there, then realize that the answer will support what position and balk at following through.

Setting aside your lies about no one addressing this, your argument here is one giant fallacy: The "state" isn't some mythical dragon on a mountaintop where you have to appeal to it in some special way that interests it in order to get what you want. It's a body of people including parents (some with kids who want cookies), spouses, and other folks who can empathize with petitioners who want this, that or the other. The "interest" doesn't need to be any more complicated than "a majority of people in the governing body thought those other people had a point when they said something was unfair or poorly executed or that their lives would be better with this change."

Even beyond such altruism, you have the pragmatic reality of people governing in "the state" got there via the will of the voters in their district or state or nation. If a bunch of people say "We want this!" and it's not actively hurting anything to give it to them, it's worth at least considering without demanding some significant benefit on your ("the state's") end.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 6:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Jun 27 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Why would people who might produce children need to be encouraged to be married? People have children without being married all the time. Sometimes they even stay together!
____________________________
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
#99 Jun 27 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
idiggory wrote:
A. Yes, I think there's a difference between groups that possess an identity and groups that do not.


Why? What causes a group to "possess an identity"? What are you really talking about? An identity is just what/who you are, right? Aren't you really talking about a "recognized identity"? And who decides what those are? I just think that whole approach is rife for silliness.

Quote:
I never once said that they deserve unequal treatment by the gov't.


Not in so many words. But you did acknowledge that the reason *** couples should gain access to marriage benefits and not first cousins (or siblings, or multi-partner groups, or whatever) is because of gays having an "identity". Which I interpret as really meaning that gays have a stronger lobby.

So you are at least supporting the policy of providing people unequal treatment by the government based solely on whether a group has sufficient political clout. Doesn't that seem backwards? Shouldn't we treat all groups the same? I think so.

Quote:
However, identities aren't a matter of population--population only helps them grow. Furthermore, my point is that an identity is something that can be oppressed.


But what you consider an "identity" has to do with whether a largish political machine has mobilized its forces to tell you that this group is being oppressed and you need to leap into action to help that group, and if you don't you're a terrible person who wants to oppress people.

Isn't that about right? Don't you feel used? This is why I reject most liberal causes. It's not about liking or disliking a group of people, it's the very fact that the groups being championed are more or less arbitrary. We should create a consistent method for determining how we derive all rights and benefits and then apply it, not cherry pick groups of people we want to help and argue for special treatment for them.


Identity politics is not only stupid, but it's inherently discriminatory. What's surprising is how many people, who insists they are opposed to discrimination, fail to see this and blindly support it every single time. We should not be fighting for "women's rights", or "black rights", or "*** rights". We should be fighting for "rights". Period. Same for everyone. Doing it the way you're doing it leads to discrimination and a society with made up of jigsaw puzzle laws full of exceptions for everyone and everything.

Quote:
Marriage is NOT A @#%^ING BENEFIT you dumbass.


At the risk of stating the obvious: Marriage is not a benefit, but Marriage Benefits are.

Quote:
No one cares if you view it that way, you are wrong. Marriage COMES with benefits right now, yes. But it is NOT reducible to the benefits.


When all we're talking about is the benefits, it can though. As I pointed out in the other thread we had just last week, the only difference between marriage and domestic partnership in California is that marriage can qualify one for federal marriage benefits. That's it. And DOMA prevents *** marriages from qualifying anyway, so in real legal terms there is no difference between the two.

So what have people in California been fighting over? What was prop8 about? What was the legal case which forced that proposition about?

It's all about the government benefits. Despite all the talk about it being about legalizing "marriage", as you correctly pointed out, "marriage" isn't the benefits. The benefits are something the government may choose to give to people who marry. Yet, when the benefits are denied to gays, you take the exact opposite position and insist that by being denied those benefits they are being denied "marriage".

Isn't that strange? You know they are two different things, but take a position on the issue that assumes that one can't exist without the other. Seriously. Stop and examine your own position for a minute. It makes no **** sense at all.

Quote:
If it came with absolutely no perks (as I think it should), I would still argue the case for *** marriage.


If it came with no perks we wouldn't be having this argument because "*** marriage" would already be legal. Heck. If we're just talking about "marriage" and not "marriage benefits", then it's legal right now. The only thing we're fighting over is the state issued or mandated benefits. What do you think a marriage license does? It qualifies your relationship for a specific set of benefits.

There's no law preventing any two people from entering into a marriage contract, sharing finances, property, life, and love, granting powers of attorney to each other, taking vows, having a wedding, inviting guests, exchanging rings, and living together in blissful harmony as spouse and spouse (and spouse and spouse and toaster if they want).

Nothing prevents that. Laws tell us what we can't do, not what we can. Barring a law telling us we can't do something (which doesn't exist, except maybe in the case of the toaster), we're free to do whatever the **** we want. That's what liberty is about. If you think that in order to have the freedom to do something, you must get the government's permission (a license if you will), then you have failed utterly to understand what freedom is. Freedom is not having to ask permission. Thus, the argument that one is fighting for the "right" to obtain a marriage license in order to be able to marriage is complete nonsense. I honestly think most of you just don't grasp this. It's absurd. You're fighting to have the government tell you what to do and pretending that you're fighting for your "rights".

You're not. You're fighting to have a comfortable government cookie-cutter status which defines your relationship. That's not the same thing. You are free right now to enter into any relationship you want.

Quote:
The only reason *** rights advocates need to argue about it regarding the benefits is that its what @#%^s like you always turn to when trying to ignore the civil rights issue.



Because the only thing being argued *for* is the benefits.


Let me apply the same thought experiment I've done before:


Let's pretend that tomorrow we could change all the laws in the country so that everyone could qualify for a marriage license from the state regardless of sexual orientation. However, we change all the laws pertaining to the state issued benefits such that only married couples consisting of one man and one woman can qualify for them. This is only the state issued benefits. So tax brackets, social security, pensions, survivor benefits, etc are affected, but the contractual stuff isn't. You can still share property, have visitation and decision making authority in hospitals, the label of "marriage", and every other social/civil thing associated with marriage.

It's only what we can all clearly identify as straight up benefits. Heck. Let's assume that the 5th amendment applies as well, so that's made available to all *** couples (everyone who is "married" gets that). We just change the benefits so that you have to be married + other conditions to qualify.


Would that be ok? Or would all you *** marriage advocates still argue against this? And if you would, then shouldn't you admit that it's really just about the benefits? The point being that I've presented this hypothetical solution many times in the past, and I've *never* gotten a response of "Yup. That's all we want. Just the label and the relationship". Ever. Yet, the same people will insist until they are blue in the face that it's not about the benefits.


Yeah. It is. Well, I actually believe it's about the political value of the issue and you're all just blindly along for the ride, but that's a whole different aspect of this issue. I don't think most of you have a clue why *** marriage is important. You've just been told that it is, so you fight for it. As I said earlier, if you were told something else was important and some other groups rights were being trampled on, you'd fight for that instead, just as strongly, and with just as much absolute conviction that you're right and everyone who opposes what you support is wrong, bigoted, and evil.

Quote:
And the "slippery slope" of equality is that the social groups in power no longer get to control the groups they are oppressing. So I REALLY don't accept that as a valid argument.


That's not what I was talking about. The slippery slope is that as each group wins some political battle for "rights" today, we just shift our focus to some new group. When you turn rights from being something you have which you need to keep the government from taking from you into something (everything) you don't have and you need to fight to get the government to give them to you, it becomes an endless thing. There is a hard limit to what you can prevent others from taking from you. There is no limit to what you can demand that others give to you.


That's the fundamental flaw with the concept of positive rights btw. Again, that's a whole separate issue, but it's relevant here because it's the flawed concept your are acting on, even if you don't realize it. You aren't fighting for the "right to marry". You're fighting for the government to give some benefits to a group of people on the grounds that not receiving them is the same as having their rights infringed upon. But we can argue that not receiving *anything* can be argued to be an infringement of rights, thus making the whole thing absurd.


But it doesn't have to make sense. It just has to work well enough to get a bunch of gullible people to support it and vote for those who adopt it as policy. So... working as intended.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Jun 27 2011 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Why would people who might produce children need to be encouraged to be married? People have children without being married all the time. Sometimes they even stay together!


Which suggests that it's better if they do stay together. And if they were married, wouldn't they be more likely to stay together? So.... If we get them to marry before having a child, then when/if they have one, they'll be more likely to stay together. Hmmm... Seems like a great interest for the state to get involved and attempt to get more people who might have children to marry!

It's not even like the dots are that far apart here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Jun 27 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,841 posts
Quote:
When all we're talking about is the benefits, it can though. As I pointed out in the other thread we had just last week, the only difference between marriage and domestic partnership in California is that marriage can qualify one for federal marriage benefits. That's it. And DOMA prevents *** marriages from qualifying anyway, so in real legal terms there is no difference between the two.


That and the fact that it's not marriage.

Y'know, which is the point.

That's actually what it comes down to. When CA *** couples were able to emulate marriage with equal benefits (which was never the case, but let's pretend), they still wanted marriage. Your argument that *** couples only care about benefits is wrong.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 78 All times are in CDT
Sandinmygum, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (76)