Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#352 Mar 16 2012 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I know. It's the kind of thing that America should have dreamed up. I blame Simon Cowell. I hate that guy...

He's attractive though. All that hair on his chest. Smiley: inlove
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#353 Mar 16 2012 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
It's the same kind of rage I felt when Xfactor came to England. I mean, this country produced Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Venom, Motörhead, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Lead Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, The Smiths, The Cure, The Damned, The Jam, The Police, The **** Pistols, The Clash, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, Jarvis **** David Bowie, Queen, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Supertramp, The Chemical Brothers and The Prodigy.
You mention Peter Gabriel but not Genesis? Smiley: disappointed

And where's the love for Saxon, Diamond Head, The Sisters Of Mercy and The Stranglers?

Edited, Mar 16th 2012 6:52pm by Aethien

I actually stole the list from a comedian called Steve Hughes. You should check him out, he's pretty funny. Linky.

Also if I were to list all of the awesome music acts from England I'd be here all day.
____________________________
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
#354 Mar 16 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Besides the fact that Gbaji will just continue to deny I've ever made an argument anyway, I don't feel too inclined to get worked up about this right now because the momentum is heading in my direction. Not perfectly and not without setbacks but each year sees more advances towards SSM and more acceptance and approval from the population at large. And each victory diminishes the other side's arguments that much more. Eventually it won't matter how much money the Mormons and the GOP throw at the issue, enough people will be siding with SSM that it's going to happen.
What I found fascinating about the first several of those polls is how quickly opinion is moving on the issue in a few short years. Most of the comparisons were about 8 years long. Certainly within a decade. And all moving smoothly towards greater acceptance of homosexuals.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#355 Mar 17 2012 at 2:21 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,961 posts
Nilatai wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
It's the same kind of rage I felt when Xfactor came to England. I mean, this country produced Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Venom, Motörhead, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Lead Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, The Smiths, The Cure, The Damned, The Jam, The Police, The **** Pistols, The Clash, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, Jarvis **** David Bowie, Queen, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Supertramp, The Chemical Brothers and The Prodigy.
You mention Peter Gabriel but not Genesis? Smiley: disappointed

And where's the love for Saxon, Diamond Head, The Sisters Of Mercy and The Stranglers?

Edited, Mar 16th 2012 6:52pm by Aethien

I actually stole the list from a comedian called Steve Hughes. You should check him out, he's pretty funny. Linky.

Also if I were to list all of the awesome music acts from England I'd be here all day.
I'm no less disappointed that you failed to mention Genesis.
Just listen to Selling England By The Pound, If that's not one of the greatest albums ever made then I don't know what is.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#356 Mar 17 2012 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
It's the same kind of rage I felt when Xfactor came to England. I mean, this country produced Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Venom, Motörhead, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Lead Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, The Smiths, The Cure, The Damned, The Jam, The Police, The **** Pistols, The Clash, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, Jarvis **** David Bowie, Queen, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Supertramp, The Chemical Brothers and The Prodigy.
You mention Peter Gabriel but not Genesis? Smiley: disappointed

And where's the love for Saxon, Diamond Head, The Sisters Of Mercy and The Stranglers?

Edited, Mar 16th 2012 6:52pm by Aethien

I actually stole the list from a comedian called Steve Hughes. You should check him out, he's pretty funny. Linky.

Also if I were to list all of the awesome music acts from England I'd be here all day.
I'm no less disappointed that you failed to mention Genesis.
Just listen to Selling England By The Pound, If that's not one of the greatest albums ever made then I don't know what is.

I agree. Genesis were good.

I had a funny in retrospect but awkward at the time moment the other day that was somewhat Phil Collins related, actually.

So, I'm in the library silent area and "In the air tonight" comes on, MP3 player. I'm just minding my own business, listening to the song. Suddenly, le wild drop appears. Out of habbit I bang on my table to the "Duh duh, duh duh, duh duh, duh duh, duhduhduh duh!" bit.

Afterwards I realised where I was, looked around and like five people were staring at me in that very English way. You know where they're like "You've annoyed me to the point where I may have to tut at you at any moment". Yeah, that wasn't fun. At the time.
____________________________
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
#357Almalieque, Posted: Mar 18 2012 at 3:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I was specifically asked a question. I did not nor did I have a plan to say anything on the subject.
#358 Mar 18 2012 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Hopefully, Obama can just put off repealing DOMA until after he's re-elected & leave the rest up to the States.

It won't shut Gbaji up about his theory, just like DADT didn't shut up Alma, but I'll feel better knowing pennies of Gbaji's tax dollars is going to support something else he doesn't believe in.


I was specifically asked a question. I did not nor did I have a plan to say anything on the subject.


Smiley: lol
Smiley: lolSmiley: lol
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol
Smiley: lolSmiley: lol
Smiley: lol
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#359 Mar 18 2012 at 11:28 PM Rating: Decent
Alma wrote:
I was specifically asked a question. I did not nor did I have a plan to say anything on the subject.


I wasn't directing that at you, but you remain a cowardly **** none the less.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#360gbaji, Posted: Mar 19 2012 at 5:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If we can agree on a firm legal "child bearing age" beyond which someone may not marry, I'm fine with restricting them as well. Of course, since men can father children pretty much right into old age, and most women go through menopause in their 40s, you'd have to fight the horde of women's rights folks calling that sexual discrimination, but by all means if you want to do this, go for it!
#361 Mar 19 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
If we can agree on a firm legal "child bearing age" beyond which someone may not marry, I'm fine with restricting them as well.
Because setting restrictions on people is what smaller government is all about!!
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#362 Mar 19 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,181 posts
Well, neocons have absolutely no qualms about interfering with women's reproductive rights, so why not extend that assumed jurisdiction and demand a note from an OB/GYN that said woman is fertile before issuing a marriage license? That's as "small government" as anything else I've heard from the wing nuts.

Oh, and I'm sure there'll need to be an approved list of doctors, of course.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#363 Mar 19 2012 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If we can agree on a firm legal "child bearing age" beyond which someone may not marry, I'm fine with restricting them as well.
Because setting restrictions on people is what smaller government is all about!!


I really can't understand this aspect of the new right. It just boggles my mind. They want smaller government... but bigger armies... and increased social controls (as long as they favor white males)... and religious restrictions that don't affect Christians? I just don't get it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#364 Mar 19 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Pfff, a government small enough to peek under the crack of your bedroom door
____________________________
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.
#365 Mar 19 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,181 posts
Hah, yeah. Government small enough to peek through a keyhole, or a cervix.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#366 Mar 19 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
It's strange that the best response anyone can give to my argument not just doesn't support the argument to expand marriage criteria, but actually argues that we should further restrict it. Which I'm not opposed to. I'm just not sure how you get from "but we let old people marry" to "let's let **** couples marry too!".
Not really. You see they don't accept your premise, and are trying to show you where your premise leads if you actually take it seriously. It certainly doesn't lead to the current state of affairs, which might seem to indicate to a reasonable person that maybe in fact, it's not correct.

It's also far from the best response, but I do understand that it is the only one that appears to you to actually accept your premise at face value, so you would think that it is the best one.

Edited, Mar 19th 2012 8:08pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#367 Mar 19 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,181 posts
I'd be fine with doing away with all government benefits regarding marriage, and having it be a purely religious state. All I care about is that the law is equal and fair.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#368gbaji, Posted: Mar 19 2012 at 8:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a restriction on criteria to qualify for a state status is a restriction on the state (the status really), not a restriction on "people". If everyone qualifies, then the number of people receiving the benefits associated with the status increases, and the impact of that status on the total population increases, resulting in "bigger government". Restricting the status and benefits to the smallest number possible is consistent with "smaller government".
#369gbaji, Posted: Mar 19 2012 at 8:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ah.... So testing the premise of someone's argument is a legitimate counter? Interesting! Strange that you didn't pipe up with this a couple pages back when I made the exact same point.
#370 Mar 19 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It is a violation of a sibling couple's rights to deny them marriage. But it's considered legitimate to take away someone's rights in the face of overwhelming social need. So far, the courts have agreed that restricting siblings from marrying counts.

This is nothing new; it's the second half the the Perez argument that gets brought up in every one of these threads. Likewise, as I've said umpteen times in various threads, the government violates our rights as a matter of social course on a regular basis (i.e. the less than absolute nature of the freedom of speech/religion/press, etc). It doesn't bother me at all to say we're violating a sibling couple's fundamental rights to deny them marriage or that of a mother and son or an adult and a child, etc. Why should it?

In those cases though, the perception is that there is a definite social ill when you allow those marriages. This is the same mindset that has prevented same **** marriage. Not some retarded "Oh, but benefits are for children!" **** but that same **** marriages are icky and bad and harm the social fabric. At least people with the balls to argue from that perspective are understanding the point of the Perez argument instead of dopes who say "No one says it's violating siblings' rights not to marry".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#371 Mar 19 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Ah.... So testing the premise of someone's argument is a legitimate counter? Interesting! Strange that you didn't pipe up with this a couple pages back when I made the exact same point
Again, not really. I've been down this road with you before, so I've been mostly ignoring it this time around. you just seemed so bewildered, I thought I'd help you out.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#372 Mar 19 2012 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll also pre-emptively state that I'm not looking to debate this point yet again either. This has come up in previous threads and each time Gbaji acts surprised to learn this or something. #363, #373 & #379

You can't really take someone seriously when they're hell-bent on proving they have all the memory of a goldfish.

Edited, Mar 19th 2012 9:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#373 Mar 19 2012 at 11:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Quote:
Ah.... So testing the premise of someone's argument is a legitimate counter? Interesting! Strange that you didn't pipe up with this a couple pages back when I made the exact same point.


It's an excellent counter to an argument, though it doesn't counter the conclusion.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#374 Mar 20 2012 at 2:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,961 posts
gbaji wrote:
How the **** can you get this completely backwards?
You should really ask yourself this.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#375 Mar 20 2012 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Um... At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a restriction on criteria to qualify for a state status is a restriction on the state (the status really), not a restriction on "people". If everyone qualifies, then the number of people receiving the benefits associated with the status increases, and the impact of that status on the total population increases, resulting in "bigger government". Restricting the status and benefits to the smallest number possible is consistent with "smaller government".

How the **** can you get this completely backwards?
ITT: garbaji shows us the meaning of "contradicting yourself" and, as an added bonus "grasping at straws".
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#376 Mar 20 2012 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You can't really take someone seriously when they're hell-bent on proving they have all the memory of a goldfish.
I like goldfish memory'd people that think you are taking them serious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#377 Mar 20 2012 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a restriction on criteria to qualify for a state status is a restriction on the state (the status really), not a restriction on "people". If everyone qualifies, then the number of people receiving the benefits associated with the status increases, and the impact of that status on the total population increases, resulting in "bigger government". Restricting the status and benefits to the smallest number possible is consistent with "smaller government".

How the **** can you get this completely backwards?
Righty, we want to restrict status and benefits to the smallest number possible? Marriage and state marriage benefits to homosexuals only! Straights and Bi's need not apply! There! excellent restriction of rights and tax costs.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#378 Mar 20 2012 at 7:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It is a violation of a sibling couple's rights to deny them marriage.


Wrong. It's a violation of everyone else's rights to provide marriage benefits to *anyone*. While there certainly is a right to "get married" (in the traditional sense), there is no right to receive benefits from the state because you married. Once again, you've got it **** backwards.

Quote:
But it's considered legitimate to take away someone's rights in the face of overwhelming social need.


Correct. So the overwhelming social need to encourage heterosexual couples to produce children within the bounds of a legally enforceable marriage contract justifies infringing on the rights of the rest of the population to provide incentives/rewards to those we want to encourage to marry. Since we *don't* want siblings to reproduce, there's no justification to infringe the rest of our rights to provide those benefits to them. Similarly, since same **** couples cannot reproduce, there is also no justification to infringe the rights of the people in order to provide those benefits to them.

I've explained this to you like a hundred times, but it's like you just can't wrap your head around the fact that it's the rights of those who are paying for the benefits that matter, not the rights of the recipients.

Quote:
So far, the courts have agreed that restricting siblings from marrying counts.


Because of the potential offspring, right? But if the status of marriage does not assume the possibility of children, then there should be no reason to restrict it from siblings.

Quote:
It doesn't bother me at all to say we're violating a sibling couple's fundamental rights to deny them marriage or that of a mother and son or an adult and a child, etc. Why should it?


It's not their rights we're violating though. What we're doing is choosing *not* to violate the rights of others in order to provide them marriage benefits. There's no law prohibiting siblings from engaging in any form of relationship they want, entering into any form of civil contracts they want, etc. We just don't reward them for doing so. Just as we don't reward **** couples for doing so. To me, the reasoning for both of those are consistent and logical.

It's only if you insist on ignoring that logical and consistent rationale that marriage suddenly becomes this arbitrary and unfair proposition. It's not. You're choosing to pretend that it is, and then ignoring any explanation that might clear things up.

Quote:
In those cases though, the perception is that there is a definite social ill when you allow those marriages. This is the same mindset that has prevented same **** marriage.


Half right. It's the same rationale, but you're still applying the social ill backwards. The ill is children born out of wedlock. The solution is to encourage the set of couples who produce children within society to get married. Siblings (and other close relations) are exceptions to that because we don't want them to reproduce at all.

But we didn't start with "let's stop siblings from reproducing by creating benefits for everyone else, but not them". We started with "let's encourage people to marry before reproducing". Then we thought "let's *not* provide that encouragement to siblings". If the objective was just to prevent siblings from reproducing, we'd have passed laws criminalizing sexual behavior between siblings and never bothered to create marriage laws at all. The marriage benefits exist for a different reason. I've explained to you numerous times what that reason is, but despite the fact that it is the only explanation which makes any sense at all, you refuse to accept it because it doesn't allow for the political agenda you want. Which is kind of backwards thinking IMO.


Quote:
Not some retarded "Oh, but benefits are for children!" **** but that same **** marriages are icky and bad and harm the social fabric. At least people with the balls to argue from that perspective are understanding the point of the Perez argument instead of dopes who say "No one says it's violating siblings' rights not to marry".


You're using the word "marriage" in a broad sense though. We're only talking about who can qualify for marriage benefits. Nothing else. No one has a right to those benefits. Period. Not siblings, not **** couples, not straight couples. No one. Instead of focusing on why we might deny them to someone, you should be asking why we provide them in the first place. Because if you can't answer that question, then you can't possibly have an informed opinion on this topic.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#379 Mar 20 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Quote:
It's a violation of everyone else's rights to provide marriage benefits to *anyone*.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most of the posters here think that marriage shouldn't confer any economic benefits?

I could just be projecting what I think, of course. But I see no reason for economic incentives for marriage.

If we are talking about other rights/benefits, like being legally entitled to be able to visit your spouse in the hospital, then I don't agree with you at all that this violates anyone else's rights.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#380 Mar 20 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The fact that "marriage" is accepted in numerous settled lawsuits to mean the entire government recognized package means that Gbaji was wrong from sentence number one. Congratulations.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#381 Mar 20 2012 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
gbaji wrote:
But if the status of marriage does not assume the possibility of children,

Thank you for contradicting yourself (again), this time about the central point of your argument against homosexuals getting married, and finally joining the sane world about our expectations re marriage: children are a possibility within marriage.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#382 Mar 21 2012 at 2:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Wrong. It's a violation of everyone else's rights to provide marriage benefits to *anyone*. While there certainly is a right to "get married" (in the traditional sense), there is no right to receive benefits from the state because you married. Once again, you've got it **** backwards.

By extension it's a violation of my rights to pay for a military. Stop it, now.
____________________________
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
#383 Mar 21 2012 at 2:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,961 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wrong. It's a violation of everyone else's rights to provide marriage benefits to *anyone*. While there certainly is a right to "get married" (in the traditional sense), there is no right to receive benefits from the state because you married. Once again, you've got it **** backwards.

By extension it's a violation of my rights to pay for a military. Stop it, now.
It is but in the case of the military it's OK because if there wasn't a military you'd have died years ago!



Note, however, that this same argument doesn't count for socialized healthcare. Although I'm not entirely sure why.


Edited, Mar 21st 2012 10:56am by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#384 Mar 21 2012 at 4:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wrong. It's a violation of everyone else's rights to provide marriage benefits to *anyone*. While there certainly is a right to "get married" (in the traditional sense), there is no right to receive benefits from the state because you married. Once again, you've got it **** backwards.
By extension it's a violation of my rights to pay for a military. Stop it, now.

It is but in the case of the militarypolice it's OK because if there wasn't a militarypolice you, gbaji, would have diedbeen killed years ago!
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#385 Mar 21 2012 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Ha ha, gbaji is using 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.
#386 Mar 21 2012 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Ha ha, gbaji is using the toaster argument.


I can't be **** to read his drivel, but if he is, then please cite accordingly:

Eske's Law:

Quote:
"As an online discussion on Same-Sex Marriage grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving marriage to toasters approaches 1 (100%)"



See also:

Eske's Corollary of Marriageable Toasters:

Quote:
"The use of the toaster as the predominant appliance in fallacious Same-Sex Marriage analogies indicates that humans find the toaster to be the most marriageable appliance."


Bibliography:

Post #68. Esquire, Eske. June 27, 2011. <http://www.zam.com/forum.html?forum=28&mid=130900515329396646&h=50&p=2#68>. Page 2.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#387 Mar 21 2012 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,181 posts
Well, sure. Toasters are easy to turn on, warm, and they feed you. I've had worse relationships.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#388gbaji, Posted: Mar 22 2012 at 7:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't agree that those things violate anyone else's rights. But you don't need a marriage license to get those things, so that's not really what this fight is about. I know that a lot of people *think* it is, but that's part of the problem with this whole issue. Lots of people think it's about X, but are arguing for Y. A marriage license is not required for those other rights and powers. A marriage license is only required if one wants the government to grant them pre-tax coverage on their spouses health care, or access to their spouses social security benefits (if they're higher), or fewer restrictions with regard to TANF benefits (the example I provided earlier), or a host of other government benefits.
#389 Mar 22 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
If you're going to lapse back into your "you can create it with a contract" argument, I'm just going to go laugh at you elsewhere.

Quote:
Then argue for the elimination of the legal status called "marriage". If you believe that, then why argue that those economic incentives/benefits should be expanded to a larger group? That seems somewhat backwards.


Because, unlike you, I don't think the dollar is the ultimate system of value. I don't think marriage should come with government awarded economic benefits. But I definitely believe that, if those benefits exist, others shouldn't be refused them when their claim is just as valid.

I happen to care about equality a **** of a lot more than I care about some people getting an unnecessary benefit from the state.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#390 Mar 22 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
It's a REALLY important social benefit to have **** couples treated the same as straight couples: to indicate the legitimacy of their love, sexuality, orientation and state of being; and to indicate (especially to homophobes) their full status as people/citizens with equal rights and protections under the law.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#391 Mar 22 2012 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,913 posts
Samira wrote:
Well, sure. Toasters are easy to turn on, warm, and they feed you. I've had worse relationships.


I can't give you enough rate ups.






...Because Kaolian banned my 41 alts :(
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#392 Mar 22 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Therefore, when one is arguing that a group of people should be allowed to obtain a marriage license, they are arguing that said group should receive those economic benefits.

They're arguing for the entire package of "marriage" as recognized by the government, be it economic, legal or whatever. Which is pretty convenient since that is the only definition of "marriage" the government uses.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#393 Mar 22 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
I really don't even know what gbaji's stance on marriage is anymore. He's making less and less sense these days.
#394 Mar 22 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I really don't even know what gbaji's stance on marriage is anymore. He's making less and less sense these days.


It's all about the children. And there is no way to know if you have children or not, or can even have children or not, so they just have to give it to all male/female married couples.


Of course, somehow that same group that can't be bothered to know if you have or are capable of having children can tell if you have children to give you a very large tax deduction.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#395 Mar 22 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
All I know is anyone that thinks marriage is all about children clearly has no children and has never been married.
#396 Mar 22 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
Nadenu wrote:
All I know is anyone that thinks marriage is all about children clearly has no children and has never been married.


If you try to explain to him the benefits to persons and society that come with marriage beyond the children, he dismisses it as unnecessary and then later cries about how no one ever gives him any reason beyond children for marriage to exist.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#397 Mar 23 2012 at 12:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
All I know is anyone that thinks marriage is all about children clearly has no children and has never been married.


If you try to explain to him the benefits to persons and society that come with marriage beyond the children, he dismisses it as unnecessary and then later cries about how no one ever gives him any reason beyond children for marriage to exist.


Well, you can't fault him for not thinking his defense through. He's protected on all sides, like he's in the middle of some kind of ring or hoop or...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#398 Mar 23 2012 at 4:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
All I know is anyone that thinks marriage is all about children clearly has no children and has never been married.


If you try to explain to him the benefits to persons and society that come with marriage beyond the children, he dismisses it as unnecessary and then later cries about how no one ever gives him any reason beyond children for marriage to exist.

Huh. My post went bye-bye.

And now it's back. Freaky.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 8:41pm by Nadenu
#399 Mar 23 2012 at 6:12 AM Rating: Excellent
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
All I know is anyone that thinks marriage is all about children clearly has no children and has never been married.


If you try to explain to him the benefits to persons and society that come with marriage beyond the children, he dismisses it as unnecessary and then later cries about how no one ever gives him any reason beyond children for marriage to exist.


Well, you can't fault him for not thinking his defense through. He's protected on all sides, like he's in the middle of some kind of ring or hoop or...
A...a bubble?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#400 Mar 23 2012 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Samira wrote:
Well, sure. Toasters are easy to turn on, warm, and they feed you. I've had worse relationships.
And much like a woman, when you put your **** in one you will get burned. It's just a matter of time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#401 Mar 23 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,181 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Samira wrote:
Well, sure. Toasters are easy to turn on, warm, and they feed you. I've had worse relationships.
And much like a woman, when you put your **** in one you will get burned. It's just a matter of time.


Or possibly shocked.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 29 All times are in CDT
BeanX, Exodus, stupidmonkey, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (25)