Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

New York approves Same *** Marriage.Follow

#52 Jun 27 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 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.


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
******
34,933 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
******
20,020 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
******
35,374 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.


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
******
49,745 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
******
30,646 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
******
30,646 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
******
20,020 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
******
34,933 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
******
35,374 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.


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
******
20,020 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
******
30,646 posts
What Joph said.
#66 Jun 27 2011 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 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
******
34,933 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
****
6,471 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
#69 Jun 27 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 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
******
20,020 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
******
20,020 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
******
34,933 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
****
6,471 posts
Because we need more soldiers in the fight against Communism!

[:stares boldly into the distance:]
#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
******
30,646 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?"
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 83 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (83)