Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#302 Mar 13 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Do you think less of me for not answering, Lolgaxe? I bet you do. Smiley: frown

and what the hell is a "lolgaxe" anyway?


lol, great axe.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#303 Mar 13 2012 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, I remember when I was just a wee Warrior foolish enough to think I was supposed to use a sword. Good times.


Hell, I used a spear exclusively up until level 21-ish, IIRC. Not for any intention to become a DRG, but just because spears are awesome, and I didn't know better.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 11:23pm by Eske
#304 Mar 13 2012 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I used to have a shadowknight in Everquest who I leveled up exclusive on blunt and piercing weapons, just to be different. Then I hit the high levels and all the cool knight weapons were swords and I had to sit and grind hundreds of points worth of one- and two-handed slashing skills Smiley: motz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#305 Mar 13 2012 at 10:20 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, I remember when I was just a wee Warrior foolish enough to think I was supposed to use a sword. Good times.


Hell, I used a spear exclusively up until level 21-ish, IIRC. Not for any intention to become a DRG, but just because spears are awesome, and I didn't know better.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 11:23pm by Eske


Playing Mnk was nice. Grab a set of those mid-teens Republic Knuckles, use until you were in your mid to late 30s, lolol.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#306 Mar 14 2012 at 3:05 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
******: a bundle of firewood.

Etymology of the use of ****** to describe homosexuals: From the time, a long time ago, homosexuals were burnt alive on bonfires along with "witches".

Social/Cultural change since then: homosexuals are now recognised by the majority of younger people, and a large minority of older people, as being people just like "us", with a major sexual kink that is not the norm but is harmless, and certainly doesn't barr homosexuals from deserving full human rights, and equal treatment to heterosexuals. A kink that gives no reason to treat "them" like second class citizens.

Heterosexual couples can marry. This is a legal state, that brings with it automatic rights and responsibilities with respect to each other, and with respect to the State and Nation. The aforementioned majority of younger people and large minority of older people, now seeing homosexuals as full human beings, instead of abominations that ought to be killed, want homosexuals to enjoy marriage to each other, with the same rights and responsibilities in that state that married heterosexuals have.
#307 Mar 14 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,287 posts
I like how I can skip over gbaji's walls of text and not miss anything that's going on in the thread.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#308 Mar 14 2012 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
I like how I can skip over gbaji's walls of text and not miss anything that's going on in the thread.


I generally glance at the first paragraph, loosely skim the next, scroll down to see how long it is, then just skim the last and respond. Works better with academic works, since you get to read the citations, but considering he could boil down his entire post to 1 or 2 sentences if he tried, generally fine.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#309 Mar 14 2012 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Etymology of the use of ****** to describe homosexuals: From the time, a long time ago, homosexuals were burnt alive on bonfires along with "witches"


Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's an etymological myth.
#310 Mar 14 2012 at 5:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why not repeat the argument?

Because you say this every time as well.


I say this every time because you continue to refer to some mystical post where you laid out exactly the counter argument I'm asking for, yet every time I ask what it was, you just say "I already told you!" and then change the subject real quick.

Quote:
You just keep denying, denying, denying and pretending no one ever said anything so you win.


Given the sheer number of times this happens to me and I humor people by repeating the argument I've already made 18 times before (often in the same damn thread), you'll have to forgive me if I don't feel sorry for you. Perhaps you could just humor me this time and actually repeat the argument instead of just repeating that you already told me?

Pretty please?


Or is this the part of the argument where you claim victory and move on, without once even presenting an argument let alone supporting or proving it? Cause that's what it feels like. It's not like you haven't done the exact same thing in every other gay marriage thread we've had, so I'm not exactly surprised. You're only cheating yourself Joph.

Edited, Mar 14th 2012 4:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#311 Mar 14 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Social/Cultural change since then: homosexuals are now recognised by the majority of younger people, and a large minority of older people, as being people just like "us", with a major sexual kink that is not the norm but is harmless, and certainly doesn't barr homosexuals from deserving full human rights, and equal treatment to heterosexuals. A kink that gives no reason to treat "them" like second class citizens.

Heterosexual couples can marry. This is a legal state, that brings with it automatic rights and responsibilities with respect to each other, and with respect to the State and Nation. The aforementioned majority of younger people and large minority of older people, now seeing homosexuals as full human beings, instead of abominations that ought to be killed, want homosexuals to enjoy marriage to each other, with the same rights and responsibilities in that state that married heterosexuals have.


So by your logic, first cousins aren't full humans? Think it through. You're making an assumption that isn't valid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#312 Mar 14 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
First of all, marriage to first cousins is legal in 24 states.

Secondly, cousin marriage laws are eugenics-based. The risk for biological deformation is 3-4% higher in the children of first cousins. And populations are, generally speaking, healthier when the gene pool remains diverse.

That said, cousin marriage didn't actually show any meaningful reduction after these laws were passed. It didn't decline (or even gain much stigma) in the US until women had the power and autonomy to move through society, effectively giving them the ability to vastly increase the number of marriage candidates by leaving small town communities for new ones, or for cities. It wasn't until this period, a good 60-80+ years after the eugenics movement, that it began to be seen as incest, and therefore immoral. In many modern nations of the world, outside the US, it still does not have this connotation--cousin marriage is relatively common in Australia, for instance.

Therefore, your analogy does not work, as the objection to homosexual marriage was moral in nature, where the objection to cousin marriage was purely eugenics.

Furthermore, even as early as the 70s, major medical and political organizations have been decrying cousin-marriage prohibitions as excessive and unnecessary, as the increased risk to children is negligible, and the laws don't actually provide any meaningful aid to the diversity of the gene pool (which is becoming naturally more diverse, particularly in the US, due to globalization).

Oh, and interestingly enough, part of the reason they called for an end to these laws was the fact that the stigmatization to first-cousin children that they caused was generally far more widespread and damaging than the minimal increase in genetic defects.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#313 Mar 14 2012 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Social/Cultural change since then: homosexuals are now recognised by the majority of younger people, and a large minority of older people, as being people just like "us", with a major sexual kink that is not the norm but is harmless, and certainly doesn't barr homosexuals from deserving full human rights, and equal treatment to heterosexuals. A kink that gives no reason to treat "them" like second class citizens.

Heterosexual couples can marry. This is a legal state, that brings with it automatic rights and responsibilities with respect to each other, and with respect to the State and Nation. The aforementioned majority of younger people and large minority of older people, now seeing homosexuals as full human beings, instead of abominations that ought to be killed, want homosexuals to enjoy marriage to each other, with the same rights and responsibilities in that state that married heterosexuals have.


So by your logic, first cousins aren't full humans? Think it through. You're making an assumption that isn't valid.


You should know the reason why first cousins are on the no-marriage list.* Homosexual couples don't have to worry about that problem, what with the inability to reproduce. Keep squirming though trying to hunt for excuses, it is rather fun to watch the worm squirm in the dirt before the bird eats it.

*At this point it wouldn't surprised me to see you type "It's because they are icky!" or some variation of it.
#314 Mar 14 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Oddly, in the U.S. first cousins are more likely to be permitted to marry in states where homosexuals are not.

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

#315 Mar 14 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Coincidentally the people who are the loudest against same sex marriage are also the ones most likely to marry their first cousins.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#316 Mar 14 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Perhaps you could just humor me this time and actually repeat the argument instead of just repeating that you already told me?

Less keystrokes to say this each time now than to repeat te whole argument each time. Seriously, go read all the old threads.
Quote:
Or is this the part of the argument where you claim victory and move on

The beauty of a strong self of self-esteem is that ham-handed attempts to manipulate me don't work so well.
Quote:
You're only cheating yourself Joph.

Nice of you to be concerned but I'm just fine Smiley: smile


Edited, Mar 14th 2012 8:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#317 Mar 14 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Coincidentally the people who are the loudest against same sex marriage are also the ones most likely to marry their first cousins.


Some folk'll never marry cuz
But then again some folk'll
It's Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel!


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

#318 Mar 14 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Criminy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So by your logic, first cousins aren't full humans? Think it through. You're making an assumption that isn't valid.


You should know the reason why first cousins are on the no-marriage list.


Of course I do. My point is that we exclude them for reasons other than not viewing them as "full human". Ari's argument was basically that by not granting legal marriage to gay couples, we are treating them as less than fully human. But if that were true, then it would be true for all sets of people we don't allow to qualify for marriage. Which would mean first cousins, siblings, groups of more than 2, etc.

Since we *don't* view those sets of people as not being fully human, then Ari's assumption isn't valid. While this does not preclude the possibility of some people not viewing gay people as fully human, it does preclude the assumption that by not granting them the same access to the legal status of "married" we are treating them as less than fully human.

Quote:
Homosexual couples don't have to worry about that problem, what with the inability to reproduce.


Yup. So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce. It's almost like the marriage status exists as an incentive to get those couples to marry so as to maximize the procreative outcome of our society. But that's just a crazy interpretation. Never mind that it is the single consistent facet to our traditional rules for who gets to marry.

The ancient Greeks didn't view homosexuality as an abomination. They practiced it as a matter of course. Yet, they didn't recognize gay marriages either. In that society, men married women in order to create families. They had sex with other men for pleasure. Amazing how frequently this whole procreative aspect of the issue of marriage keeps cropping up. Makes one wonder why some people insist on denying it.

Quote:
Keep squirming though trying to hunt for excuses, it is rather fun to watch the worm squirm in the dirt before the bird eats it.


I'm not squirming at all. You basically just provided yet more support for my position.


I think the first problem many people have when they look at government benefits, is that they interpret them in the context of why a specific group is denied them. What you should be doing is looking at why the state grants them to the group it includes. Ask why the state would target a given benefit at a specific set of people. Then ask if that same reason applies to a larger set. If marriage benefits were just about the lives of the two people involved, we would have no reason to exclude people because of close blood relations (or for being the same sex). There's only one quite obvious explanation for why we bother to exclude that group. And once you understand that, you should understand why gay couples should also be excluded.


But that would require objectively looking at the issue rather than reacting based on emotion. And that's hard for most people to do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#319 Mar 14 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce

Smiley: dubious

No one should be able to decide who can or can't reproduce.

I consider myself a liberal, but not necessarily a Democrat. I don't like big government. And I don't think the government should be able to tell anyone who they can or can't marry.

Have you forgotten that homosexuals are still in the minority? So if every single state decided tomorrow that they could get married, there would still be less SSM than straight marriage. I bring this up because you once said that you didn't want your taxes increasing to pay for the benefits of SSM.

Just shut up about the children. It's not about the children. If it were, single parents wouldn't get all the things from the government that they do, while married parents are struggling.
#320 Mar 14 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Coincidentally the people who are the loudest against same sex marriage are also the ones most likely to marry their first cousins.


Some folk'll never marry cuz
But then again some folk'll
It's Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel!




I don't know what just happened, but I think I need a shower...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#321 Mar 14 2012 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Just don't marry a boy cousin and you'll be fine.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#322 Mar 14 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Well, one of my cousins is really hot. But he's my second cousin once removed, or something like that, and his mom was adopted. So I feel less awkward about it. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#323 Mar 15 2012 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Of course I do. My point is that we exclude them for reasons other than not viewing them as "full human". Ari's argument was basically that by not granting legal marriage to gay couples, we are treating them as less than fully human. But if that were true, then it would be true for all sets of people we don't allow to qualify for marriage. Which would mean first cousins, siblings, groups of more than 2, etc.


No, we don't give marriage licenses to first cousins, siblings, etc because of the health risks that are involved when they reproduce. If homosexuals want to reproduce they don't have that problem.

Gbaji wrote:
So we only grant marriage licenses to those couples who may reproduce and who we want to reproduce.


While my wording wasn't extremely precise I was hoping you would be brighter than a parrot for once. Sure two women / men cannot produce children with just their partner but when you modern medicine (or a willing third) you can have a homosexual couple that has kids. Cousins don't have to worry about going that extra step due to obvious reasons. So you want to grant marriage licenses to couples who may / want to reproduce? Glad to see you are starting to understand our side.

Gbaji wrote:
There's only one quite obvious explanation for why we bother to exclude that group.


Don't suppose you could expand on that, what with it being so obvious. Partly because I am genuinely curious why.
#324 Mar 15 2012 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Criminy wrote:
Sure two women / men cannot produce children with just their partner but when you modern medicine (or a willing third) you can have a homosexual couple that has kids.
There's also that system that's been around for thousands of years: Adoption.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#325 Mar 15 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Sure two women / men cannot produce children with just their partner but when you modern medicine (or a willing third) you can have a homosexual couple that has kids.
There's also that system that's been around for thousands of years: Adoption.


Yeah but the Gbaji will just say that adoption doesn't count for god knows what reason. So I just focued it down to involving love juices to help focus his attention. But that, obviously, is an impossible task. Smiley: disappointed
#326 Mar 15 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Only natural children count. Adoption isn't natural Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 306 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (306)