Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#552 May 04 2011 at 10:25 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
And of course glossing over the tens of thousands of dollars only one of those two contracts costs.


The first one costs tens of thousands of dollars. The rest cost the amount of a photocopy. How many millions have been spent on this issue? If it was just about the cost to enter into a marriage contract, they could have paid some lawyers to write up some boilerplate contracts and distributed them to every *** couple (or any two people for that matter) who wanted them and pocketed the several hundred million dollar difference.
Have you ever dealt with a lawyer before?
____________________________
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.
#553 May 04 2011 at 10:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm playing devils advocate to show how absurd the argument for SSM based on "but it's discrimination!!!" is.

It is discrimination. The courts have made it clear that you have a fundamental right to marry unless there's some overwhelming reason to not allow it. We discriminate against various types of couplings because we feel there is a great enough social concern to warrant doing so. The proponent argument for SSM is that there isn't a great enough social concern to warrant the discrimination and denial of this fundamental right.


So it's arbitrary then?

Quote:
That's where you start misusing the word "arbitrary" and trying to draw a comparison between twelve-year-old siblings and homosexual couples, apparently being unable to understand that the arguments for denying one group their fundamental right aren't the same reasons for denying another group their fundamental right (even if both denials were completely justified).


Lol. Predicting my answer doesn't make my answer wrong Joph.

And that still makes the difference arbitrary, doesn't it? We arbitrarily decide that 12 year olds aren't mentally mature enough to enter into marriage. We arbitrarily decide that marriages can't include more than two people. We arbitrarily decide that adults and children can't marry. We arbitrarily decide that marrying your cat doesn't count. We arbitrarily decide that siblings can't marry. We arbitrarily decide that *** couple can't marry. We used to arbitrarily decide that mixed race couples couldn't, but changed our minds (also arbitrarily). And we arbitrarily decide that opposite *** couples can marry.


I'm arguing that we shouldn't just assume those decisions are arbitrary, but perhaps have a purpose beyond just "well, society decided we should do X". I'm looking for that purpose, because to me, we shouldn't be doing things like giving benefits to groups unless their is a purpose for doing so beyond it being a benefit for them and we feel sorry that they're excluded. IMO, that's just a **** poor reason. I don't agree that those decisions are arbitrary. You're the one who thinks that they are and seem to be perfectly fine with it.

I'm not. Give me a reason why I should be willing to pay to provide those benefits to *** couples. Can you do that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#554 May 04 2011 at 10:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
And of course glossing over the tens of thousands of dollars only one of those two contracts costs.


The first one costs tens of thousands of dollars. The rest cost the amount of a photocopy. How many millions have been spent on this issue? If it was just about the cost to enter into a marriage contract, they could have paid some lawyers to write up some boilerplate contracts and distributed them to every *** couple (or any two people for that matter) who wanted them and pocketed the several hundred million dollar difference.
Have you ever dealt with a lawyer before?


That's why it cost 10,000 dollars to write the contract. But if you paid him that to write up a standard contract, he'll do that too. And once written, you can make copies and let anyone fill them out and file them. Just like any of a number of pretty standard contracts out there. Do you pay 10k to have a lawyer write a contract when you buy a home? No? Why not? Because mortgage contracts are standardized. Same deal with every time you take your car in for service and you fill out a service request form. Guess what? At some point in the past, someone hired a lawyer to figure out what needed to be on that form to protect both the customer and the mechanic. But today, you buy them in sheets of 50 for 10 bucks a pop (ok. I have no idea how much they cost, but whatever).


Why do you think this would be different?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#555 May 04 2011 at 10:52 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So it's arbitrary then?

Again, you don't seem to understand what "arbitrary" means.
Quote:
Give me a reason why I should be willing to pay to provide those benefits to *** couples. Can you do that?

Sure. I have in the past. You won't accept it though. So, that's cool because your opinion doesn't mean a whole lot in the whole SSM debate (nor does mine).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#556 May 04 2011 at 11:30 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Mortgage companies tend to have lawyers on retainer.

If home-buying contracts were as simple as you think they are, real estate lawyers would be out of a job. Markets always lead to the optimal solution, right?

Also, are you going to write your will with a lawyer in a box? It can't be that complicated, right? It's as simple as getting your car worked on!




Edited, May 5th 2011 12:45am by Sweetums
____________________________
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.
#557Almalieque, Posted: May 05 2011 at 5:04 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) In my defense, I only used the "A homosexual can marry someone of the opposite ***" argument to counter the argument "Homosexuals are denied the right to marry". That wasn't my argument against SSM and I've stated that numerous times.
#558 May 05 2011 at 6:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I don't think you have any room to question anyone about the definition of "Arbitrary".

Wow, you're still butthurt over losing that? Hahaha... thanks for the morning laugh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#559 May 05 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Almalieque wrote:
In my defense, I only used the "A homosexual can marry someone of the opposite ***" argument to counter the argument "Homosexuals are denied the right to marry".
How is that a defense? Its a retarded comment since simply marrying someone is not what the statement "Homosexuals are denied the right to marry" implies, and everyone knows that. Well, everyone but you apparently and maybe gbaji.
____________________________
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

#560Almalieque, Posted: May 05 2011 at 6:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's the point! WTF are you implying it? Just say what you mean. The only thing that you're doing is pretending that it's much worse than it is by hiding behind a much worse injustice. What if everyone I fell in love with were married and I said "I'm denied the right to marry"? You're intentionally being misleading.
#561 May 05 2011 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Denied the right to marry the person they want. Is that better? Are you really not getting it?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#562 May 05 2011 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
What if everyone I fell in love with were married and I said "I'm denied the right to marry"?

I assume most people would shrug since it wouldn't be the government denying you that right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#563varusword75, Posted: May 05 2011 at 7:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#564 May 05 2011 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
While I disagree that it's a good enough reason, it's at least more of a reason than Gbaji ever managed to come up with.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#565 May 05 2011 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
It is discrimination. The courts have made it clear that you have a fundamental right to marry unless there's some overwhelming reason to not allow it


Disease is as good a reason as any.


I knew it! You are that judge!
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#566 May 05 2011 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
gbaji's point is going to be (after a few more pages) that marriage exists for a single reason: the potential to have children. He has said this in previous statements. As such, homosexuals should not get married nor receive the benefits of marriage, because there is no potential for children. Couples unable or unwilling to have children should still receive these benefits, because it's too difficult to actually take the time to find out if they do. Much easier to just say "Adoption is not an option here, you have different genitals, so you get benefits."

As he's been saying for the last 2 pages, it's arbitrary. Because in the end, everything is arbitrary - the less common use of which means "decided by a judge (an arbiter)." The problem being, gbaji's argument that marriage (and benefits) are about potential for children holds no legal substance. Many of the benefits have jack-all to do with kids as well. gbaji is incorrect in saying that all the benefits can be given by separate documents, primarily some are only given through marriage (being on your spouse's insurance, for example; changes in taxation for another).

So... what Joph said. In the end, his argument is "It's easier to continue to discriminate than to change what I feel is the meaning behind marriage" when in fact it seems obvious to most of us that it's easier to widen the view of marriage to stop this discrimination.

Also, gbaji's analogies suck.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#567varusword75, Posted: May 05 2011 at 7:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Atard,
#568Almalieque, Posted: May 05 2011 at 7:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How about, "Denied the right to marry someone of the same ***"? That's much better, wait that's actually exactly what it is. Are you really not getting it?
#569 May 05 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,

Homosexuals are far more likely to contract and spread std's than hetero's. That's not being judgemental that's being factual. That you don't like the facts is irrelevant.

Quote:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the U.S. government agency tasked with guarding Americans’ health — has finally put a number on the massively increased HIV risk associated with “men who have *** with men” (MSM): “***” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely to have HIV.


If you want to blame someone for being judgemental blame the CDC.


I missed where HIV tests were necessary for marriage?
Also: lesbians have almost a 0% chance of getting HIV. Huzzah, *** marriage!
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#570 May 05 2011 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji's argument that marriage (and benefits) are about potential for children holds no legal substance.

Gbaji stumbles right out of the gate by claiming that benefits are an incentive and thinking them to be proactive. In reality, the benefits have all been reactive -- groups of people didn't like their options under marriage and petitioned for changes to taxes, inheritance law, property law or whatever else. When you inaccurately view them as proactive, you're left asking "What did they want to influence in future couples?" When correctly viewed as reactive, you can say "What were they responding to in their own couplings?" and pinpoint the causes of their discontent via news clippings, historical analysis and other means.

Unfortunately for Gbaji, those causes never come down to "They really wanted more people to get married before they have kids" and that's the entire foundation of his argument. So he's stuck continually arguing that it's all about creating some incentive and using a plaintive cry of "It's Obvious!" as his only evidence.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#571 May 05 2011 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,

Homosexuals are far more likely to contract and spread std's than hetero's. That's not being judgemental that's being factual. That you don't like the facts is irrelevant.

Quote:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the U.S. government agency tasked with guarding Americans’ health — has finally put a number on the massively increased HIV risk associated with “men who have *** with men” (MSM): “***” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely to have HIV.


If you want to blame someone for being judgemental blame the CDC.


I was refering to this:
http://wow.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1304458881302294931&page=1
I wasn't calling you judgemental...this time.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#572 May 05 2011 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Denied the right to marry the person they want. Is that better? Are you really not getting it?


How about, "Denied the right to marry someone of the same ***"? That's much better, wait that's actually exactly what it is. Are you really not getting it?


So why is that ok?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#573 May 05 2011 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How about, "Denied the right to marry someone of the same ***"? That's much better, wait that's actually exactly that it is. Are you really not getting it?
No, that's not what it is. It is exactly what was said. Heterosexuals can marry the person they love if the person they love, loves them back. Homosexuals cannot. I know I'm going to need toe xpand that for you, as you're a pedantic ********* when losing an argument, so, that should say "Heterosexuals can marry the person they love if the person they love, loves them back and is a consenting unmarried adult. Homosexuals cannot."
____________________________
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

#574 May 05 2011 at 8:16 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,086 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Denied the right to marry the person they want. Is that better? Are you really not getting it?


How about, "Denied the right to marry someone of the same ***"? That's much better, wait that's actually exactly what it is. Are you really not getting it?


So why is that ok?


That's an entire different argument.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
How about, "Denied the right to marry someone of the same ***"? That's much better, wait that's actually exactly that it is. Are you really not getting it?
No, that's not what it is. It is exactly what was said. Heterosexuals can marry the person they love if the person they love, loves them back. Homosexuals cannot. I know I'm going to need toe xpand that for you, as you're a pedantic sh*tstain when losing an argument, so, that should say "Heterosexuals can marry the person they love if the person they love, loves them back and is a consenting unmarried adult. Homosexuals cannot."


It's not that nonsense that you stated, because the authority to marry has nothing to do with love. You don't know who you might fall in love with.

You are denied the right to marry someone of the same ***. That's exactly what it is. No one cares if you do or don't love someone, except for religion.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#575 May 05 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
You are denied the right to marry someone you love. Marriage is about love. It cannot be any clearer than that. If you fail to see this, that's your problem, but it also puts you arguing from the wrong position.
____________________________
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

#576varusword75, Posted: May 05 2011 at 8:40 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#577 May 05 2011 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
varusword75 wrote:
it's not like I read most your posts.
Or anything at all.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#578 May 05 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Gbaji, I'm posting from my phone, so you're not going to get a full explanation for the time being.

You said that you didn't agree with the "homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite ***" argument. Well, ******* super. It's a ******* insane argument. So why do I need to counter it again?

Just watch Alma contort himself trying to defend it. Seriously. What the **** was your point? Just to throw it out there and test the waters?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#579 May 05 2011 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
varusword75 wrote:
I'd say that a group of people are far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus falls under the "overwhelming reason to not allow it".
I'd say that a group far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus would be an ideal group to paired up though marriage so as not to spread it everywhere else.
____________________________
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

#580 May 05 2011 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,


I guess you missed Jopheds post, not that I blame you it's not like I read most of your posts.

Anyway he posted,

Quote:
The courts have made it clear that you have a fundamental right to marry unless there's some overwhelming reason to not allow it.


I'd say that a group of people are far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus falls under the "overwhelming reason to not allow it".



Edited, May 5th 2011 10:41am by varusword75

We are talking about marriage here. People in monogamous, commited relationships don't tend to contract or spread disease.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#581 May 05 2011 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
varusword75 wrote:

I'd say that a group of people are far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus falls under the "overwhelming reason to not allow it".

Lesbians? Smiley: confused
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#582varusword75, Posted: May 05 2011 at 9:03 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#583Almalieque, Posted: May 05 2011 at 9:04 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The government doesn't care who you love or if you love at all, hence why a person who doesn't love anyone is equally discriminated against.
#584 May 05 2011 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
I'd say that a group far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus would be an ideal group to paired up though marriage so as not to spread it everywhere else.


You're assuming they're going to change their behaviour.

Don't most people when they get married?
____________________________
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

#585 May 05 2011 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You are denied the right to marry someone you love. Marriage is about love. It cannot be any clearer than that. If you fail to see this, that's your problem, but it also puts you arguing from the wrong position.


The government doesn't care who you love or if you love at all, hence why a person who doesn't love anyone is equally discriminated against.

How can we discriminate against the unknown? No one knows nor cares who you might fall in love with. The discrimination is 100% denying the right to marry someone of the same ***. If you so happen to love someone of the same ***, then you're screwed. A bisexual can't marry someone they love of the same ***, but they can marry someone they love of the opposite ***. A heterosexual man can marry a woman who he doesn't love. The person's sexuality is irrelevant. There are no laws requiring love, you're making the same nonsensical argument that Belkira was making.


You really have a hardon for me, don't you?
#586varusword75, Posted: May 05 2011 at 9:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#587 May 05 2011 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How can we discriminate against the unknown?
Easily?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#588 May 05 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Amalieque: Pathologically disingenuous.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#589 May 05 2011 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
Don't most people when they get married?


No they don't. What's the divorce rate?
Less than 100%, therefore it would still help.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#590 May 05 2011 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
What's the divorce rate?

Off-topic, divorce rate stats suffer from the same weighing issues as life expectancy stats; premature endings drag the whole thing down and paint an inaccurate picture. Once you make it past the first couple years of marriage, the chance of your marriage surviving increase dramatically. Likewise, a bunch of other variables (income, time between marriage and having a child, your own family, religion) have a strong influence in bucking the odds.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#591 May 05 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,086 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You are denied the right to marry someone you love. Marriage is about love. It cannot be any clearer than that. If you fail to see this, that's your problem, but it also puts you arguing from the wrong position.


The government doesn't care who you love or if you love at all, hence why a person who doesn't love anyone is equally discriminated against.

How can we discriminate against the unknown? No one knows nor cares who you might fall in love with. The discrimination is 100% denying the right to marry someone of the same ***. If you so happen to love someone of the same ***, then you're screwed. A bisexual can't marry someone they love of the same ***, but they can marry someone they love of the opposite ***. A heterosexual man can marry a woman who he doesn't love. The person's sexuality is irrelevant. There are no laws requiring love, you're making the same nonsensical argument that Belkira was making.


You really have a hardon for me, don't you?


I did ;)
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#592varusword75, Posted: May 05 2011 at 11:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#593 May 05 2011 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
The entire community won't change. Just like how all heterosexual men don't change and suddenly become monogamous. The point is, that your reason of spreading disease is unfounded as it will actually reduce the spread of disease by shacking up some who are monogamous. Don't worry though, none of us expect you to comprehend any of this. We're just going through the motions for the benefit of the viewers at home.
____________________________
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

#594 May 05 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
varusword75 wrote:


Do we have any real proof that allowing homosexuals to marry would be good for society?

Well, we could link statistics from European countries that allow SSM, but you don't real sources, facts, or proofs, so why would it matter?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#595varusword75, Posted: May 05 2011 at 11:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#596varusword75, Posted: May 05 2011 at 11:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#597 May 05 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Do we have any real proof that allowing homosexuals to marry would be good for society?

I don't need to provide any. The standing is that marriage is a fundamental right that can not be denied without some major justification. Once someone shows harm due to their rights being denied, it's up to the defenders to justify why their rights should be denied.

In the most recent case in California, this resulted in some jamoke saying that their rights should be denied because marriage is all about having children and he didn't need to prove it because it's just obvious. Brilliant legal analysis which quickly led to the defense appealing their lost case.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#598 May 05 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
Quote:
Well, we could link statistics from European countries that allow SSM,

Then do it.

Why? You don't read it. Just looked up some info online though, and it seems I'm right. Also interestingly, states that BAN *** marriage directly make homosexuals feel worse off and more discriminated against, and shows an increase of HIV among *** men. If you'd like a quote:
Quote:
The data of current psychological and other social science studies on same-*** marriage in comparison to opposite-*** marriage indicate that same-*** and opposite-*** relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Same-*** couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM, et al. (July 2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics 118


So, banning *** marriage means worse health for homosexuals, and granting it will help them. Ball in your court, my closeted friend.

Edit: Here's an article about an author who studied the effect of *** marriage legalization in the Netherlands, where it's been legal for about a decade: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/how-the-dutch-work-same-***-marriage/

Her conclusion? It caused no damage to "traditional" marriage, made homosexuals personally happier, and was better for their self-esteem than civil unions.

Edited, May 5th 2011 1:54pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#599 May 05 2011 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
The point is, that your reason of spreading disease is unfounded as it will actually reduce the spread of disease by shacking up some who are monogamous


or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have *** with other guys they think are married and monogamous.



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

Follow me on Twitter!
#600 May 05 2011 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
The point is, that your reason of spreading disease is unfounded as it will actually reduce the spread of disease by shacking up some who are monogamous


or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have *** with other guys they think are married and monogamous.


You mean married closet cases?
____________________________
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.
#601 May 05 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
The point is, that your reason of spreading disease is unfounded as it will actually reduce the spread of disease by shacking up some who are monogamous


or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have *** with other guys they think are married and monogamous.



...what?

Haha, that's almost as retarded as gbaji's assertion that abortion increases unwanted babies because people have unsafe *** solely because they can abort and then decide not to.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CST
Almalieque, angrymnk, Kavekkk, Kuwoobie, lolgaxe, Anonymous Guests (41)