Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Texas *** Marriage Ban UnconstitutionalFollow

#77 Mar 04 2014 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Something about Austin having a bunch of hippies I bet.


No, IDrownFish has been on the defensive about Texas lately.
#78 Mar 04 2014 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Probably because he is from Texas.
____________________________
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.
#79 Mar 04 2014 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Probably because he is from Texas.


I picked up on that.

ETA: I'm from Tennessee and now live in Florida, but I don't feel the need to defend either state. I'm not even sure it's possible to do so....

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 2:50pm by Belkira
#80 Mar 04 2014 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,433 posts
Sometimes I'm surprised Austin is still a part of Texas.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#81 Mar 04 2014 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Sometimes I'm surprised Austin is still a part of Texas.
They have effective City Limits.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#82 Mar 04 2014 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Australia (as a whole Smiley: mad) is a racist prick.

Smiley: glare
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#83 Mar 04 2014 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Probably because he is from Texas.


I picked up on that.

ETA: I'm from Tennessee and now live in Florida, but I don't feel the need to defend either state. I'm not even sure it's possible to do so....

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 2:50pm by Belkira
Texas is a big state. No need to generalize and some defense might be justified. But is a solid red state with very conservative politics that tend to sway, or attempt to sway much of the rest of the country.




____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#84 Mar 04 2014 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
ETA: I'm from Tennessee and now live in Florida, but I don't feel the need to defend either state. I'm not even sure it's possible do so ...
At least we aren't Arizona.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Mar 04 2014 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Australia (as a whole Smiley: mad) is a racist prick.

Smiley: glare
Colin Hay was on Prairie Home Companion this weekend. I listened - twice. I forgot how much I loved his Aussie-accented voice.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#86 Mar 04 2014 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira wrote:
Yes, urban areas often do. What is your point?


I'm just saying Texas gets a pretty unfair rep sometimes.

I mean, sometimes it gets a reputation which is 100% deserved, but I just don't think that's the case here.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Something about Austin having a bunch of hippies I bet.


No, IDrownFish has been on the defensive about Texas lately.


Eh. It's been popping up a lot over here recently. I usually don't join in in the Asylum Politics™, so if it seems like I've been talking about Texas a lot it's because it's one of the few things I actually do talk about in the Asylum. Other times I just don't post.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Probably because he is from Texas.


I picked up on that.

ETA: I'm from Tennessee and now live in Florida, but I don't feel the need to defend either state. I'm not even sure it's possible to do so....


Yeah, that would be a toughie.


Edited, Mar 4th 2014 4:58pm by IDrownFish
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
#87 Mar 04 2014 at 9:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers


I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?

Quote:
and always compares SSM rights to giving a child a pet.


I compare any government benefit to giving a child a free pet. Because it's the best example I can think of where we'd all agree that just because you oppose the government spending money on something that benefits some group, doesn't mean you hate that group.

Quote:
The contempt just drips through with each post.


That's entirely within your own imagination.

Quote:
Even better when he's ironically insisting that he doesn't feel that way: "Just because I don't want homosexuals to have the right to legally marry the partner they love doesn't mean I hate them! I don't want to give every toddler a kitten either!"


And? It's a valid point. When someone's argument rests on the claim that if I don't want to grant marriage benefits to *** couples, it means that I hate homosexuals, it's perfectly legitimate to point to another case where I don't want my government to spend money providing something nice to a group but where it doesn't mean at all that I hate that group as a means of showing how illogical that argument is. Nothing ironic about it at all.


Do you think that the only reason for wanting to deny some government benefit for a group is because you hate that group? Cause that would be a fun one to try to defend.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 7:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Mar 04 2014 at 10:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I "always" do this?

Regularly. If a semantic victory over the use of "always" is what you want to pin your argument on here, that says volumes by itself.
Quote:
That's entirely within your own imagination.

Funny how my "imagination" always plays out the same way, huh?
Quote:
Do you think that the only reason for wanting to deny some government benefit for a group is because you hate that group?

Only? No. Yours? Eh, maybe. Less "hate" and more just like I said: contempt.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Mar 04 2014 at 10:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I "always" do this?

Regularly. If a semantic victory over the use of "always" is what you want to pin your argument on here, that says volumes by itself.


How often is regularly? IIRC, I made that comparison one time, in one thread, years ago, and I'm reasonably certain I didn't say that homosexuals were rapists or whatever. I almost certainly used child rapists as an example of another form of behavior which people might oppose to make a broader point about how social mores don't have to be "fair" to everyone in society.

And I know for a fact that I have *never* argued that *** couples should not be granted marriage benefits because they're just like child rapists. Ever. So good job bringing up something completely irrelevant, I guess.


Quote:
Quote:
Do you think that the only reason for wanting to deny some government benefit for a group is because you hate that group?

Only? No. Yours? Eh, maybe. Less "hate" and more just like I said: contempt.


And yet, your only evidence for this is that I oppose the government providing said benefit. Circular much?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Mar 04 2014 at 11:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
IIRC, I made that comparison one time, in one thread, years ago...

You don't RC
Quote:
And yet, your only evidence for this is that I oppose the government providing said benefit. Circular much?

Nah, my "evidence" is your words and behavior on the forum. I don't expect you to agree or admit to it so, no, I'm not interested in "proving" it to you. People can draw their own conclusions by what they read.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 11:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Mar 05 2014 at 3:49 AM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,364 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers
I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?
You constantly make a "slipperly slope" argument equating them, yes.

On top of being a horrible American and human being, try not to be a liar, too.

Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
and always compares SSM rights to giving a child a pet.
I compare any government benefit to giving a child a free pet. Because it's the best example I can think of where we'd all agree that just because you oppose the government spending money on something that benefits some group, doesn't mean you hate that group.
Right. It's like how I don't hate homeowners; just the free money they get for buying a house.


____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#92 Mar 05 2014 at 6:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Quote:
Only? No. Yours? Eh, maybe. Less "hate" and more just like I said: contempt.


No, I don't see that. I see him genuinely not understanding why we'd wish to offer relational benefits to *** couples over non-coupled *** people or non-coupled straight people. I believe he overlooks a lot of the non-financial benefits which really should be offered, and focuses on the financial benefits which should really be offered to 'all couples with children' rather than all straight couples.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#93 Mar 05 2014 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
But gays can't make children by themselves! And that's what marriage has always been about since the beginning of time.

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 8:48am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Mar 05 2014 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Marriage is the defense against all of us just running off and having *** *** all the time, because then the human race would die out!
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#95 Mar 05 2014 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,433 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I like how Gbaji always compares homosexuals to child rapists and dog @#%^ers
I "always" do this? Really? So in this thread somewhere? No?
You constantly make a "slipperly slope" argument equating them, yes.
I seem to recall something about marrying animals and kitchen appliances.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#96 Mar 05 2014 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Hey diddle diddle.....

Just don't marry the frog to the blender. Get the facts on domestic violence.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#97gbaji, Posted: Mar 05 2014 at 6:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And if someone argued that anyone who opposed the mortgage tax deduction hated homeowners, I'd disagree with them too, for exactly the same reason. What's your point?
#98 Mar 05 2014 at 6:43 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
And if someone argued that anyone who opposed the mortgage tax deduction hated homeowners, I'd disagree with them too, for exactly the same reason.

Do you oppose the mortgage interest tax deduction?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#99 Mar 05 2014 at 6:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I see him genuinely not understanding why we'd wish to offer relational benefits to *** couples over non-coupled *** people or non-coupled straight people. I believe he overlooks a lot of the non-financial benefits which really should be offered, and focuses on the financial benefits which should really be offered to 'all couples with children' rather than all straight couples.


I understand perfectly why people wish to grant those benefits to *** couples. I disagree that we should. Those are completely different things. My argument largely revolves around the fact that the cost to society if same *** couples don't marry is significantly lower than the cost to society if opposite *** couples don't. The question is not "how does it hurt you if a *** couple marries?". It's "how does it hurt you if they don't?".

The disagreement usually ends out being over why we have those benefits in the first place. Most people think that the benefits exist to help the people who receive them. I think that's a foolish reason to provide benefits because all benefits "benefit" the people who receive them. It's a circular argument. We could justify *any* set of benefits to *any* group by that logic (like say, giving every child in the country a free pet). To me, if you want to argue why we should provide some benefit to a group, you should argue that by doing so, the rest of us gain some benefit or avoid some cost. It's easy to make that argument for granting marriage benefits to couples consisting of one male and one female. It's hard as **** to make that argument for a same *** couple.


And let me point out (for the zillionth time). Granting benefits to couples who are raising children is completely separate from granting benefits to people who marry. One pays people to raise children. The other encourages people to form into relationships most beneficial to raising children *if* they reproduce. That's a pretty important distinction.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Mar 05 2014 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I understand perfectly why people wish to grant those benefits to *** couples. I disagree that we should. Those are completely different things. My argument largely revolves around the fact that the cost to society if same *** couples don't marry is significantly lower than the cost to society if opposite *** couples don't. The question is not "how does it hurt you if a *** couple marries?". It's "how does it hurt you if they don't?".

The social effects of marriage show no indication of being tied to sexual orientation, and primarily revolve around stability for children, the increased stability of two income households in times of stress, etc. Not rocket science. There's certainly an argument that there is no benefit to legally codifying cohabitation. There is no valid argument that there is a benefit to codifying hetro cohabitation but not SSM. This isn't new ground, been endlessly thrashed out in court cases and academia for decades now.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#101 Mar 05 2014 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
And if someone argued that anyone who opposed the mortgage tax deduction hated homeowners, I'd disagree with them too, for exactly the same reason.

Do you oppose the mortgage interest tax deduction?


No, I don't. Why? My point is that my position isn't based on liking or disliking "homeowners". In this specific case, it's about making it easier to own a home. We clearly believe that society is better off having more people owning their own homes, than fewer. Ergo, it makes sense to make owning a home easier. It's not about liking or disliking homeowners. That's silly.

In a similar way, society is better off having more opposite *** couples married than fewer. Ergo, it makes sense to make marrying easier for them (and provide them some incentives to do it). Society is not affected one way or the other if same *** couples marry. Thus, there's no reason to provide state benefits to them if they do. They're still free to marry if they want, but we have no reason to provide them an incentive to do so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)