Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say **** BillFollow

#452 Apr 29 2011 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Meh. I think the main reason for people **** around is getting married right out of high-school. People don't have enough pre-marital sex, so go out looking for extra-marital sex.
____________________________
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
#453 Apr 29 2011 at 9:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Meh. I think the main reason for people **** around is getting married right out of high-school. People don't have enough pre-marital sex, so go out looking for extra-marital sex.


While that's probably part of the issue, talking to people who have done so, a common response has been "tired of the same 'ol thing". They just want something different, which can go hand and hand with your statement of not having the **** experience.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#454 Apr 29 2011 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Debauchery for the win. Take that conservative values!
____________________________
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
#455 Apr 29 2011 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I wonder where I'd be today if I didn't receive the **** experience.
#456 Apr 30 2011 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Meh. I think the main reason for people **** around is getting married right out of high-school. People don't have enough pre-marital sex, so go out looking for extra-marital sex.


While that's probably part of the issue, talking to people who have done so, a common response has been "tired of the same 'ol thing". They just want something different, which can go hand and hand with your statement of not having the **** experience.


If that is the common response that you are getting, then I would think that those particular people were not really in love with their spouse. I have seen reasoning that involves that the cheater isn't getting what he/she wants out of the relationship and that is what led they astray. This excuse is only slightly less f'd up. I do understand that people can feel that they aren't getting enough out of a relationship, but the proper way to handle that is to communicate and seek outside help if needed. Failing this, breaking up would be the next step. I don't think that cheating is ever an appropriate response.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#457gbaji, Posted: May 03 2011 at 5:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) At the risk of resurrecting a conversation from last week:
#458 May 03 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,382 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because historically, same **** couples have been considered a "special circumstance" for which legally recognized marriage has been denied. The side which wants to change that kinda bears the burden of convincing everyone else that the rules we've followed all along should change, right?
As a country, we've historically made mistakes on what we recognized legally. You'd think we'd learn by now how embarrassing that ends up being.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#459 May 03 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of resurrecting a conversation from last week:

Jophiel wrote:
SSM is unquestionably a civil rights matter. The courts have ruled and upheld that marriage is a fundamental right and can only be denied under special circumstances. It is upon opponents to SSM to explain why this fundamental right should be denied to this specific group. Unfortunately, due to politics and homophobia, it has fallen upon the proponents to convince people supposedly tasked with protecting our rights why they should be allowed to have them.


Because historically, same **** couples have been considered a "special circumstance" for which legally recognized marriage has been denied. The side which wants to change that kinda bears the burden of convincing everyone else that the rules we've followed all along should change, right?



Yes yes, and historically, we had slaves, and women couldn't vote. Times change, try to keep up moron.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#460gbaji, Posted: May 03 2011 at 6:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And that's exactly the kind of statement which could equally apply to any of the [boogeyman sexual thingies] Joph talked about. That was easy!
#461 May 03 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,382 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because historically, same **** couples have been considered a "special circumstance" for which legally recognized marriage has been denied. The side which wants to change that kinda bears the burden of convincing everyone else that the rules we've followed all along should change, right?
As a country, we've historically made mistakes on what we recognized legally. You'd think we'd learn by now how embarrassing that ends up being.
And that's exactly the kind of statement which could equally apply to any of the [boogeyman sexual thingies] Joph talked about. That was easy!
Sure, when you keep referring to it in a generic manner, you can keep pretending that Same **** Marriage is the same thing as pedophilia.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#462 May 03 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
There is no legal "slippery slope" argument from SSM to [boogeyman sexual thingie] because [boogeyman sexual thingie] has its own specific reasons for being denied this right.


When the arguments for moving same **** couples from the "denied" set to the "accepted" set apply equally well for those other [boogeyman sexual thingie] groups, then it is a slippery slope.

Really? So the same arguments apply whether we're talking about homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc? Your argument, presumably, would be that **** people are unable to give consent, right?
#463 May 03 2011 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
There is no legal "slippery slope" argument from SSM to [boogeyman sexual thingie] because [boogeyman sexual thingie] has its own specific reasons for being denied this right.


When the arguments for moving same **** couples from the "denied" set to the "accepted" set apply equally well for those other [boogeyman sexual thingie] groups, then it is a slippery slope.

Really? So the same arguments apply whether we're talking about homosexuality, @#%^philia, bestiality, etc? Your argument, presumably, would be that **** people are unable to give consent, right?


**** people, are in reality, toasters.
#464 May 03 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Gay people, are in reality, toasters.

I, for one, take no offense if two loving, consensual toasters choose to fuck each other. However, gbaji clearly feels that the economic impact on the bagel industry is too great to allow this to happen.
#465 May 03 2011 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,928 posts
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#466 May 03 2011 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
******
43,382 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
what is the defense against polygamy then?
A second wife.

But seriously, I don't see it needing a defense. Seems human nature wasn't intended for the mating for life with a single person model. As long as they're in full agreement, shouldn't really be wrong. Again, the idea is that all parties in question are consential partners and adults. Pretty much feel the same way towards it as I do SSM. Not for me.

Edit: Added a word that should be common sense but you know it wouldn't be.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 11:58pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#467 May 03 2011 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
what is the defense against polygamy then?
A second wife.

But seriously, I don't see it needing a defense. Seems human nature wasn't intended for the mating for life with a single person model. As long as they're in full agreement, shouldn't really be wrong. Again, the idea is that all parties in question are consential partners. Pretty much feel the same way towards it as I do SSM. Not for me.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 11:32pm by lolgaxe


This.

I also feel that way about (consensual adult) incest.
#468 May 03 2011 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?


As long as all parties are consenting, mentally competent adults, I don't care who gets married. Polygamy, ok, reletives, not my business.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#469 May 03 2011 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.
#470 May 03 2011 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Majivo wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.


Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...
#471 May 04 2011 at 4:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
What everyone else said.

I have no problem with consenting polygamy, incest, ect. I personally wouldn't engage in either (especially the polygamy, wtf??) but if others want to, more power to them.
#472 May 04 2011 at 5:54 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Majivo wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Gay people, are in reality, toasters.

I, for one, take no offense if two loving, consensual toasters choose to fuck each other. However, gbaji clearly feels that the economic impact on the bagel industry is too great to allow this to happen.


Okay, if I ever get to 10k, I want my title to be "consentual toaster"

Dead serious.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#473 May 04 2011 at 6:38 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Toasters are too much like a woman four slots, shiny, makes toast. Need a better appliance analogy.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#474 May 04 2011 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Toasters are too much like a woman four slots, shiny, makes toast. Need a better appliance analogy.


Toasterphobe.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#475varusword75, Posted: May 04 2011 at 9:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) All your opinions only matter if you think the govn should be in the marrying business and that married couples should receive benefits singles do not.
#476 May 04 2011 at 9:20 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,262 posts
Quote:
All your opinions only matter if you think the govn should be in the marrying business and that married couples should receive benefits singles do not.


Married couple should not receive benefits that singles do not. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the **** marriage issue as logic would dictate that if it were, then the argument should be against marriage in general.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#477Almalieque, Posted: May 04 2011 at 9:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If married couples ARE receiving benefits that single people are not, then you are already discriminating from the start. While there are people fighting to simply be "married", most from what I've heard are fighting for the benefits. At that point, your argument of being discriminated against holds no value.
#478 May 04 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
****
9,262 posts
Quote:
If married couples ARE receiving benefits that single people are not, then you are already discriminating from the start. While there are people fighting to simply be "married", most from what I've heard are fighting for the benefits. At that point, your argument of being discriminated against holds no value.


I'm saying that if a man and woman can be married for the benefits, then a same **** couple should be able to as well. My point being, that if you're going to use the benefits thing as an argument against Same **** Marriage, then you have to argue against all marriage, or else then you're discriminating.

I'm not saying at all that there should be extra benefits, I'm just saying that your argument goes against logic.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#479 May 04 2011 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Guenny wrote:
Majivo wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.


Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...


I don't think that's true, because that's so very easily avoidable. That might have been the reason given, but that can't be the real reason.
#480 May 04 2011 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Belkira wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Majivo wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.


Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...


I don't think that's true, because that's so very easily avoidable. That might have been the reason given, but that can't be the real reason.


I don't know, I was speculating. It stills happens to people often in our day. How often when you are going to marry someone do you think, "Well, I don't really trust this person 100%, let me make sure they're not legally or otherwise married in another state."
#481 May 04 2011 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
******
43,382 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If married couples ARE receiving benefits that single people are not, then you are already discriminating from the start.
So single people should have the same benefits as married people?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#482 May 04 2011 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If married couples ARE receiving benefits that single people are not, then you are already discriminating from the start.
So single people should have the same benefits as married people?
Sounds like Alma is advocating communism.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#483 May 04 2011 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Belkira wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Majivo wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.


Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...


I don't think that's true, because that's so very easily avoidable. That might have been the reason given, but that can't be the real reason.


I always heard that polygamy was illegal because since you can only be married to one person at a time, the other wives can't benefit legally from their husband. If he decides not to support them, they have to get government assistance. I guess they could possibly sue for child support, but I'd say a lot of them just get welfare.
#484 May 04 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Guenny wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Majivo wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.


Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...


I don't think that's true, because that's so very easily avoidable. That might have been the reason given, but that can't be the real reason.


I don't know, I was speculating. It stills happens to people often in our day. How often when you are going to marry someone do you think, "Well, I don't really trust this person 100%, let me make sure they're not legally or otherwise married in another state."


True. But marrying two people when those people are unaware is, and should be, illegal. Polygamy is different. That's when everyone involved knows what's going on. And so long as everyone involved is signing the certificate (like, one man and one woman marrying another woman or something) then it seems easy to me to prove that happened. Otherwise, it's fraud.

Nadenu wrote:
I always heard that polygamy was illegal because since you can only be married to one person at a time, the other wives can't benefit legally from their husband. If he decides not to support them, they have to get government assistance. I guess they could possibly sue for child support, but I'd say a lot of them just get welfare.


I had heard something similary, I think. That is ringing a bell...
#485 May 04 2011 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Belkira wrote:


Nadenu wrote:
I always heard that polygamy was illegal because since you can only be married to one person at a time, the other wives can't benefit legally from their husband. If he decides not to support them, they have to get government assistance. I guess they could possibly sue for child support, but I'd say a lot of them just get welfare.


I had heard something similary, I think. That is ringing a bell...
Stop giving him ideas!
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#486 May 04 2011 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
This discussion is making me sad that my next DVD of Big Love isn't here yet. =(
#487Almalieque, Posted: May 04 2011 at 1:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No, my point is that marriage is a very discriminatory institution. Just because you love someone and do everything that a heterosexual married couple does, you are not guaranteed the same benefits. You and your partner must meet certain criteria to include being married. So, a person can't logically make an argument for SSM simply on being prevented from benefits.
#488 May 04 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,382 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Just because you love someone and do everything that a heterosexual married couple does, you are not guaranteed the same benefits.
That argument sounds a lot like the excuses used for segregation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#489Almalieque, Posted: May 04 2011 at 1:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I didn't create the rules of marriage, I'm just stating them how they are. Given that marriage discriminates, it wouldn't surprise me if they are.
#490 May 04 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,382 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Just because you love someone and do everything that a heterosexual married couple does, you are not guaranteed the same benefits.
That argument sounds a lot like the excuses used for segregation.
I didn't create the rules of marriage, I'm just stating them how they are. Given that marriage discriminates, it wouldn't surprise me if they are.
So you're saying there was nothing wrong with segregation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#491 May 04 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
so Alma's argument is that because it isn't perfect, we shouldn't try to make it better?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#492 May 04 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
so Alma's argument is that because it isn't perfect, we shouldn't try to make it better?


Alma is right and wrong as usual.

Yes, marriage discriminates, but not in the way he means. Marriage discriminates against **** people. Marital benefits discriminate against single people. He is saying marriage but is talking about the benefits.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#493 May 04 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Guenny wrote:
Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here.


And same **** marriage doesn't? I'm not picking on you, it's just that what you wrote is almost exactly my argument about **** marriage. There's nothing preventing you from entering into a **** relationship, but you just can't be legally married. Found it funny is all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#494 May 04 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Should have read farther I guess.

Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I always heard that polygamy was illegal because since you can only be married to one person at a time, the other wives can't benefit legally from their husband. If he decides not to support them, they have to get government assistance. I guess they could possibly sue for child support, but I'd say a lot of them just get welfare.


I had heard something similary, I think. That is ringing a bell...


But then isn't that completely arbitrary? We don't allow polygamy because our current laws don't allow it? Why not? Isn't that just arbitrary discrimination?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#495 May 04 2011 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Inertia and legal headaches. SSM can be easily accomplished because, if we work on the notion that both sexes start equally in determining marriage benefits/rights/etc, then what those sexes are (MF/FF/MM) is pretty irrelevant.

Polygamy is a much larger legal headache with a much smaller group of proponents. So it just hasn't happened. As a general concept, I'm not sure that I really care if a group of people want to enter into a consensual polygamous union.

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that as long as the group who sees it as some abomination is significantly larger than the group of proponents, no one is going to even start to tackle the legal tangle it would involve.

Edited, May 4th 2011 7:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#496 May 04 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Yes, marriage discriminates, but not in the way he means. Marriage discriminates against **** people. Marital benefits discriminate against single people. He is saying marriage but is talking about the benefits.


Given that the only thing gained by "legally recognized marriage" is the benefits, I'm unsure why you want to make the distinction. There is nothing at all preventing a **** couple from marrying. Their marriage just wont be legally recognized and wont qualify them for any benefits. Let's not forget that we are really just arguing over who gets to qualify for benefits and who doesn't. Marriage discriminate against **** couples exactly as it discriminates against single people and exactly as it discriminates against polygamists and siblings and every other combination of people that doesn't include one adult male and one adult female.


Gay's are not special in this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#497 May 04 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Polygamy is a much larger legal headache with a much smaller group of proponents.


Let's be honest here. Polygamy is something associated with a minority religion. As such, it's not liked by the majority religions *and* it's not something that the mostly secular left is going to champion. Let's not pretend that there's anything more to it than that. It's just as discriminatory, it's just a discrimination which most people are ok with. Which leads us right back to my whole argument about the distinctions being arbitrary and thus subject to slippery slope.

There is no legitimate reason to discriminate against one, but not the other. Just as theres no reason to restrict marriage benefits from *any* consenting people except purely arbitrary ones about preference. We're ok with two people of the same **** getting married, but not three people? And not siblings? And not adults and children? How about if we marry two children? What about arranged marriages? Aren't we just arbitrarily deciding what we like and we don't like here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#498 May 04 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let's be honest here. Polygamy is something associated with a minority religion. As such, it's not liked by the majority religions *and* it's not something that the mostly secular left is going to champion. Let's not pretend that there's anything more to it than that.
Jophiel wrote:
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that as long as the group who sees it as some abomination is significantly larger than the group of proponents, no one is going to even start to tackle the legal tangle it would involve.

Maybe you missed the edit.
Quote:
Aren't we just arbitrarily deciding what we like and we don't like here?

You can say that about the current state of affairs. Two twelve year old siblings can certainly fuck and make more children so let's let them marry, right?

I guess smarter people see the difference.

Edited, May 4th 2011 7:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#499 May 04 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
******
43,382 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let's not forget that we are really just arguing over who gets to qualify for benefits and who doesn't.
And we just can't let those gays get health insurance through their jobs for their significant others!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#500 May 04 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Just because you love someone and do everything that a heterosexual married couple does, you are not guaranteed the same benefits.
That argument sounds a lot like the excuses used for segregation.
I didn't create the rules of marriage, I'm just stating them how they are. Given that marriage discriminates, it wouldn't surprise me if they are.
So you're saying there was nothing wrong with segregation.


Self-segregation, nope. As I argued numerous times over, the main argument against segregation was that even under "Separate but Equal", it wasn't. I'm sure if it were, we probably still would be segregated.

Are you implying that we should rid marriage because segregation is bad?

Bard wrote:
so Alma's argument is that because it isn't perfect, we shouldn't try to make it better?


Of course not, that's Belkira's argument, see my sig. My argument is that you can't simply use the argument "I'm being discriminated against", when marriage is built upon discrimination.

Aili wrote:

Alma is right and wrong as usual.

Yes, marriage discriminates, but not in the way he means. Marriage discriminates against **** people. Marital benefits discriminate against single people. He is saying marriage but is talking about the benefits.


Marriage doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, they have the same legal restrictions to marriage as heterosexuals. Marriage discriminates on any person or couple that doesn't meet the criteria defined by the government in order to be married.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#501gbaji, Posted: May 04 2011 at 6:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How about instead of talking about how easy it is to tell the difference (amusingly, this is the second time someone's used that form of counter), you actually state what the difference is?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT