Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#102gbaji, Posted: Feb 23 2012 at 3:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yup. Which is why conservatives have been arguing against those benefits for 40-50 years now on exactly the grounds that they are damaging the traditional family and the institution of marriage. So now that we've gone down the slippery slope for so long, you use the very thing conservatives opposed because it would lead us to this to argue for exactly what we warned it would cause? Now that the left has made single parenthood more beneficial than marriage, it means that marriage isn't really important to the state anyway, so why not just hand it out willy nilly?
#103 Feb 23 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You propose we make *** people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are *** so that the whole "exposed as ***" issue goes away?

Oh, hi Strawman. What's up? Carpooling with Excluded Middle? Well, gotta save gas, you know? Maybe you guys can hit the bar on the way home. Sounds like you'll need it.


Also, Godwin's driving that car.
#104 Feb 23 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trifecta!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#105gbaji, Posted: Feb 23 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If there isn't then we should be eliminating them, not expanding them. Perhaps *you* don't think that benefits should be granted only if there's some larger social goal, but most conservative believe that this is the case. It's kinda silly for you to insist that I must make my decisions based on your own criteria. I believe that we shouldn't provide these benefits unless there's a goal to them. I accept the cost of those benefits because of a specific goal that I believe they serve. Extending those benefits to *** couples does not serve the same goal. Thus, I oppose that extension of benefits.
#106 Feb 23 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Feb 23 2012 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
"It's the government's job to give incentives to create nuclear families."

Oh, so it's the government's job to direct society?

"ABSOLUTELY NOT! Government has no right acting as an agent of change."

Smiley: lol
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#108 Feb 23 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not aware that he expended any special effort to conceal his sexual orientation Joph. Are you?

How about the fact that he threatened to export his *** lover if he said anything, you fucking ******?
#109 Feb 23 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You propose we make *** people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are *** so that the whole "exposed as ***" issue goes away?

Oh, hi Strawman. What's up? Carpooling with Excluded Middle? Well, gotta save gas, you know? Maybe you guys can hit the bar on the way home. Sounds like you'll need it.


As opposed to the strawman which says that all republicans must be anti-***, or the excluded middle that says that a *** person must either shout his homosexuality from the rooftops, or be willing to commit a crime to conceal it. You're the one who started this ride Joph. I'm just taking your own illogic and showing you how ridiculous it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Feb 23 2012 at 4:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not aware that he expended any special effort to conceal his sexual orientation Joph. Are you?

How about the fact that he threatened to export his *** lover if he said anything, you fucking ******?


Except that's not what happened. It is the assumption many of you have leaped to based on your own biases. The only threat the sheriff sent did not mention deportation, and was related to his ex hacking into his web sites. There is *zero* evidence that this had anything to do with homosexuality, fear of exposure, or anything like that. You're filling in the gaps with your own biased assumptions.


That's why I keep saying this is circular. You assume all republicans must be anti-***. Thus, you assume any *** republican must fear being exposed as ***. Thus, you assume that anything he did must have been motivated by that fear. Don't you see that if you eliminate the first assumption, all the others fall apart? Your own assumptions lead you to a conclusion which supports your own assumption. It's circular though. You assume the whole thing is about him being ***, while ignoring the evidence which says that it's about something else entirely.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Feb 23 2012 at 4:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"It's the government's job to give incentives to create nuclear families."


Nope. That's not the government's job at all. However, if the government has chosen to collect income taxes, and has chosen to create social security, and has chosen to create pensions and military benefits, and it already uses those things to influence some parts of our society, then it's acceptable (even preferable) to use those already existing structures to encourage positive behavior.

Quote:
Oh, so it's the government's job to direct society?

"ABSOLUTELY NOT! Government has no right acting as an agent of change."

Smiley: lol


You're being selective though. I would gladly argue that we eliminate all marriage benefits *if* we also eliminate personal income taxes, social security, medicare, income security, government pensions, and all government funded or mandated benefits of all kinds in our society. Are you ok with that? Cause I am. But until then, I'll argue as I have: That I am willing to accept an increase of my taxes to pay for benefits for heterosexual married couples because I believe that the resulting social positives outweigh the negatives. Now, if we lived in a system where no part of the fruits of my labors would have to pay for the education, welfare, health care, food, housing, legal expenses and incarceration costs that are inevitably going to be higher if the percentage of children born to unmarried women is higher, then I would have no reason to even consider paying higher taxes so as to attempt to reduce that rate.

We don't live in that world, do we?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Feb 23 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Ignoring your absurd argument that the government created those things as an encouragement for marriages (which you've never once provided a shred of proof for, and I'm not at all interested in discussing it until you do)...

So you think it's okay for the government to implement a system, and then use it to police society? Why in the world is that superior to creating a law specifically to police society?

I vastly prefer the later. It's easier to combat if it's being abused.

Unless your argument is that tax benefits and such have accidentally added incentive to create nuclear families. But I doubt that's the case, considering its contrary to the argument you've been screaming for years.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#113 Feb 23 2012 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Can't be working all that well, seeing as over half of all marriages over there end in divorce.
____________________________
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
#114 Feb 23 2012 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm just taking your own illogic and showing you how ridiculous it is.

Oh, no doubt that's exactly your intent Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115gbaji, Posted: Feb 23 2012 at 6:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Of course that's not the case. A couple hundred years ago, our society imposed marriage rules on couples by inflicting harsh social (and sometimes legal) penalties for violating them. Today, we use government funded benefits to do the same thing. Why assume that the objective has changed? IMO, only the methodology has. We use those benefits today for the same reasons historical cultures have applied things like banishments, social stigma, shotgun weddings, etc. The only difference is that you've adopted a political agenda which requires you to ignore that history and pretend that we never had any reason to do any of those thins at all. Marriage laws just appeared with no purpose or reason.
#116 Feb 23 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ITT: Gbaji doesn't understand the word "evidence".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Feb 23 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
I'm sorry, I should have been clear. I want "proof" in the form of primary sources, court documents, speeches, or anything to suggest that this was actually a reason the laws were created.

"Proof" does not refer to op-eds, editorials, or opinion pieces, and you are @#%^ing idiot for continuing to link them. No, really, there's absolutely no reason to sugar coat it any more. If you actually can't understand this, you must have to walk around wearing a helmet, and I'm almost ready to start considering Alma your intellectual superior.

Not only did you link me three articles of these sorts, you linked them from absurdly biased sources.

The only scholarly source you offered is one you clearly didn't read, otherwise you'd have realized it was discussing Transsexual marriage. The absolutely hilarious part was that they declared that a male-to-female transexual and male person had every right to marry, despite having no sexual ability to produce children. Why? Because they determined that there was no aspect of the marriage contract that demanded the ability to produce children, should both partners be in a state to accept that. The court ruled that the appearance of *** was what mattered, not the actuality of it--if one sexual organ was entering another, even if they did not function properly, it was intercourse. Included in that was the determination that valid marriage was not linked to the presence of, or ability to create, children.

Furthermore, there are some great gems in the piece. For instance, the fact that Marriage is, in law and our society, a "status, not a civil contract." Well, there goes your argument that law is a civil contract and, therefore, equal to a civil union.

In other words, the only source that wasn't absurd--a scholarly source--is one proving you wrong, you @#%^ing imbecile.

[EDIT]
Quote:
ITT: Gbaji doesn't understand the word "evidence".


Unfair, I was in class and typing this while listening. Ironically, the discussion is about the functions of Medieval marriage. Specifically, the fact that love had no part in the marriage contract, that parental relationships with children were nothing like we understand them today, and that it was essentially an inherent part of medieval marriage that men would not be faithful. Marriage was for economics, lust was outside of it.

When we began to marry for love, we left this system behind us.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2012 8:05pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#118 Feb 23 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Can't be working all that well, seeing as over half of all marriages over there end in divorce.

That's only because the *** people want to get married, which in turn destroys the institution of marriage. If it wasn't for that, nobody would cheat and actually live up to "til death do we part".
#119 Feb 23 2012 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
What better way to stop *** *** than to let them get married?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Feb 23 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
What better way to stop *** *** than to let them get married?


Oh, you! That would only work for lesbians, duh.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#121 Feb 23 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
What better way to stop *** *** than to let them get married?


Oh, you! That would only work for lesbians, duh.


Judging by how many straight men are having buttsex on the side, I'm guessing a lot of the married ****** would actually go looking for ******. So does that help or hurt marriage?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 Feb 23 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have been clear. I want "proof" in the form of primary sources, court documents, speeches, or anything to suggest that this was actually a reason the laws were created.


What would you consider a primary source though? Speeches by whom? Aren't you just going to dismiss any source I use anyway?

The first link provides tons of court findings, including full citations. You should perhaps read it? Or perhaps read more of the links as well?

Quote:
"Proof" does not refer to op-eds, editorials, or opinion pieces, and you are @#%^ing idiot for continuing to link them.


If someone else has assembled a set of the exact sources and cites that you are asking for, I could cut and paste their entire work *or* just link to it. How about you try reading some of the things I linked to and see if some of them contain information which might just match what you're looking for? Do I have to hold your **** hand here?


Quote:
Not only did you link me three articles of these sorts, you linked them from absurdly biased sources.



Any source agreeing with me on this would be considered by you to be biased though. So your opinion is somewhat meaningless, isn't it?

Quote:
The only scholarly source you offered is one you clearly didn't read, otherwise you'd have realized it was discussing Transsexual marriage. The absolutely hilarious part was that they declared that a male-to-female transexual and male person had every right to marry, despite having no sexual ability to produce children. Why? Because they determined that there was no aspect of the marriage contract that demanded the ability to produce children, should both partners be in a state to accept that.


You didn't read the paragraph at the beginning, did you? While the abstract addresses the concept that the purpose and legal meaning of marriage has changed, it clearly states that what it changed *from* was one in which the states interest was illegitimate children *to* one where it focuses more on sexuality regardless of procreation. Regardless of the final position taken in the paper, it does support my position regarding the original state purpose for creating marriage licenses in the first place (in this case, to try to reduce the number of illegitimate children).
Furthermore, there are some great gems in the piece. For instance, the fact that Marriage is, in law and our society, a "status, not a civil contract." Well, there goes your argument that law is a civil contract and, therefore, equal to a civil union.

Quote:
When we began to marry for love, we left this system behind us.


That addresses why people marry, but *not* why the state chooses to provide benefits to those who do. That's the part you seem to keep missing.



Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? I'm still waiting for *anyone* to propose and support an alternative explanation as to why the state would create those marriage benefits in the first place. And no: "Because people wanted them" isn't good enough. People want lots of things, but we don't give all of them to them. There is always a reason why we grant some benefits, but not others. I'm asking you to do your own thinking and try to figure out why this might be. Call it an assignment if you want.

Can you do this? I've asked for this repeatedly, but no one seems willing or able to do it. I just can't see how you can sit there shooting down my explanation, when you can't produce one of your own.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Feb 23 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
Any source agreeing with me on this would be considered by you to be biased though. So your opinion is somewhat meaningless, isn't it?
That's cool. Any source agreeing with them on this is considered by you to be biased, too. So you've canceled each other out in meaninglessness.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 Feb 23 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Are you REALLY asking me to define what a primary source is? No wonder you have such a terrible grasp of history, your teachers clearly sucked. I'd expect a high school freshman to understand this concept.

A primary source is one that goes to the root of the problem. Do I have to define root for you too? If you are discussing how literature has changed over a period of 100 years, the actual pieces of literature are your primary source. Literary critiques might be a secondary source. If you are discussing how literary critique had changed, then those critiques would be primary sources (and scholarly articles on these changes, or citing changes, would be secondary sources).

You are making a claim that these laws and benefits were established for a specific reason. A primary source goes back to the very root of those laws and benefits. A primary source might be text from the law, text from the court that passed the law (on it, obviously), content from speeches made concerning the law (by those who PASSED it or proposed it), house debates on it, etc.

Opinion pieces published in newspapers at the time would not be primary sources. Opinion pieces published now definitely aren't.

It's an incredibly simple concept. A primary source gives you a primary account of what you are studying.

And are you seriously going to deny that a source from the "Catholic Defense" blog, or the Marriage Law Foundation ("to defend and protect marriage between a husband and wife") aren't biased. Are you that ******* stupid?

If your point is obvious, is infallible, is so definitely true, then you should have no issues whatsoever in providing us with documents from the time of establishment that these laws/benefits were created for the reasons you describe.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#125 Feb 23 2012 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Do I have to hold your **** hand here?

If you thought you actually had a valid source, you'd be waving it from a banner rather than petulantly pouting that you shouldn't have to show anyone.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Feb 23 2012 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You propose we make *** people sew a symbol on their clothes so that everyone will know they are *** so that the whole "exposed as ***" issue goes away?

Oh, hi Strawman. What's up? Carpooling with Excluded Middle? Well, gotta save gas, you know? Maybe you guys can hit the bar on the way home. Sounds like you'll need it.


Also, Godwin's driving that car.


This image has never been more relevant.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 81 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (81)