·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Texas Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Texas Gay Marriage Ban UnconstitutionalFollow
I think we're at the cusp of that quota.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Gbaji using "deltas" is my usual tell that he's just spinning crap to sound like he knows what he's talking about and I can safely tune out. It's like Gingrich saying "fundamentally".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
He's on the cusp, so he's bouncing back and forth.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Quote:
Infants don't give a @#%^ about marriage. They're form secure attachments to 10 people dressed as minotaurs so long as they take breaks from maze haunting and spend time with the infant
Had a rare actual laugh-out-loud on that one.
Edited, Mar 7th 2014 10:52pm by trickybeck
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji using "deltas" is my usual tell that he's just spinning crap to sound like he knows what he's talking about and I can safely tune out. It's like Gingrich saying "fundamentally" anything.
FTFY
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Smasharoo wrote:
Um... You're really asking that question? You'd be hard pressed to find any social policy organization in the last half century who would argue otherwise.
Nope.
Most argue vehemently that the most important difference between those stuck in poverty and those who succeed is the opportunity for home ownership.
False. What a crazy bullsh*t idea. "If only we could get these catastrophically poor people into a loan for an overvalued home that they can't afford, THEN we might get some where."
No one has thought this, ever.
Now some have gone too far with this and caused the whole housing bubble, but the basic idea is true.
The housing bubble HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES. NOTHING
Let it sink it. It's a ludicrous "blame the poor people" fallacy that's never been even vaguely close to true. 93% of housing defaults tied to toxic mortgage securities were from homes that were not the owners primary residence.
If it's at all possible for someone to spend their housing dollars on buying a home rather than renting, that person's fortunes and the fortunes of his children and grandchildren will be affected for the better.
Nope.
How does that help society as a whole?
It doesn't. It helps banks.
Lower crime. More responsibility. People who own rather than rent are much less likely to engage in vandalism and a host of other forms of crime. They're much more likely to be gainfully employed. Most importantly, when we get to second generation effects, they are less subject to a "wage slave" state. Owning property means that housing costs are much lower for successive generations. Losing a job when you own a home outright is bad, but not nearly as bad as if you are renting (or still buying). You have many more options, and can afford to take a lower paying job in the meantime rather than be "stuck" in a "must earn X dollars or not work at all" situation.
The benefits across the board for greater home ownership within a society are pretty significant. While I'm not surprised that you'd oppose it (cause your ideology more or less requires people remain as poor as possible), I am surprised you'd be so blatant about your opposition. I kinda expected you to be a bit more coy about it.
The reason I'm so "blatant" about my opinion is that it's based on data, not a wild guess and what I saw on "Meet The Press" twenty years ago and sort of vaguely remember.
The Home Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction is pointless and basically a gift to the upper middle class. It should be eliminated and the dependent deduction increased for people below certain income thresholds.
Nope.
Most argue vehemently that the most important difference between those stuck in poverty and those who succeed is the opportunity for home ownership.
False. What a crazy bullsh*t idea. "If only we could get these catastrophically poor people into a loan for an overvalued home that they can't afford, THEN we might get some where."
No one has thought this, ever.
Now some have gone too far with this and caused the whole housing bubble, but the basic idea is true.
The housing bubble HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES. NOTHING
Let it sink it. It's a ludicrous "blame the poor people" fallacy that's never been even vaguely close to true. 93% of housing defaults tied to toxic mortgage securities were from homes that were not the owners primary residence.
If it's at all possible for someone to spend their housing dollars on buying a home rather than renting, that person's fortunes and the fortunes of his children and grandchildren will be affected for the better.
Nope.
How does that help society as a whole?
It doesn't. It helps banks.
Lower crime. More responsibility. People who own rather than rent are much less likely to engage in vandalism and a host of other forms of crime. They're much more likely to be gainfully employed. Most importantly, when we get to second generation effects, they are less subject to a "wage slave" state. Owning property means that housing costs are much lower for successive generations. Losing a job when you own a home outright is bad, but not nearly as bad as if you are renting (or still buying). You have many more options, and can afford to take a lower paying job in the meantime rather than be "stuck" in a "must earn X dollars or not work at all" situation.
The benefits across the board for greater home ownership within a society are pretty significant. While I'm not surprised that you'd oppose it (cause your ideology more or less requires people remain as poor as possible), I am surprised you'd be so blatant about your opposition. I kinda expected you to be a bit more coy about it.
The reason I'm so "blatant" about my opinion is that it's based on data, not a wild guess and what I saw on "Meet The Press" twenty years ago and sort of vaguely remember.
The Home Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction is pointless and basically a gift to the upper middle class. It should be eliminated and the dependent deduction increased for people below certain income thresholds.
Having societal value gained from widespread home ownership was a thing in popular academia until fairly recently. Post crisis, policy institutions have started reevaluating this view. Saying there is no basis for this idea is fairly silly, as the view of this subject in the research is still evolving. Gbaji's cultural information is fairly well known to be 5-20 years out of date, when there was an attribution of a home ownership social boon. Now, granted, there have been a lot of self-interest driven studies by financial institutions which muddied the water on this issue, but assuming that the populous is plugged into things like the NPR piece on the 30-yr fixed seems overly rose-tinted , I mean, you seem to know at least something about the information transfer dynamics of low-information voters, so this can't be entirely new.
Just as Planned.
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Paskil wrote:
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
I'm not. Isn't the popular wisdom that people stop having sex after they get hitched? Clearly it's a conspiracy to stop gay sex.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Isn't the popular wisdom that people stop having sex after they get hitched?
Edited, Mar 11th 2014 2:52pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Paskil wrote:
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?
Because it only takes one small group to invalidate his argument. Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
Heh, Michelle Bachmann ********** Insane) whines that homosexuals are bullying America, including the Arizona veto:
Quote:
"There's nothing about gays in there. But the gay community decided to make this their measure," Bachmann said. "I think the thing that is getting a little tiresome, the gay community, they have so bullied the American people, and they've so intimidated politicians. The politicians fear them, so that they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere."
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Paskil wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?
Because it only takes one small group to invalidate his argument. Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Jophiel wrote:
Heh, Michelle Bachmann (R-Batsh*t Insane) whines that homosexuals are bullying America, including the Arizona veto:
Quote:
"There's nothing about gays in there. But the gay community decided to make this their measure," Bachmann said. "I think the thing that is getting a little tiresome, the gay community, they have so bullied the American people, and they've so intimidated politicians. The politicians fear them, so that they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere."
Gay bullying kind of tickles.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
They'll give you such a slap.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Gay bullying usually leads to gay sex.
*In porno world.
*In porno world.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Getting dragged into the restroom and your head shoved in the toilet takes on a whole 'nother level.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
They'll give you such a slap.
And a bad haircut.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Paskil wrote:
Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
I was trying to make him label men who've had vasectomies.
What should we call them?
Snipsters?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
I was trying to make him label men who've had vasectomies.
What should we call them?
Snipsters?
All tied up.
Just can't seem to get it out.
Or something like that...
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
They'll give you such a slap.
And a bad haircut.
Speak for yourself. The only straight man I'd trust to cut my hair is Me. (and even that trust is dubious)
Elinda wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?
Because it only takes one small group to invalidate his argument. Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
Reaching to be offended. My overarching point is that couples that have no ability to have children are still allowed to get married. I would think the vast majority of marriages that are made up of individuals that would never have children would be women that have passed menopause (hence using it in my example). In gbaji's world, marriage is a contract where two people should get married, have a child, and get a divorce once the child turns 18 if they intend to have no further children. I mean, why else do we give them federal/state benefits?
I have read the Utah, Virginia, Texas, and Kentucky rulings in their entirety and they pretty much all say at some point that having a child is not a prerequisite for marriage and never has been. This has to be addressed since the fancy new conservative argument against gay marriage in all of these cases (including the Michigan trial we should be hearing back on any day now) is about the children and how the ideal family unit is a father and a mother. His argument is irrelevant and fucking stupid.
If my choice of wording somehow offended you, well, I don't know what to tell you.
Paskil wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Gbaji, your argument is unsound for one simple reason. Post menopausal women can still get married. If marriage was about children, there would be no reason to allow marriage after the age of possible child birth. As a fiscal conservative, you should logically support nullification of all such marriages.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Also, you're a cunt.
Just tell us the real reason. It's because gay sex is ooky isn't it? It isn't surprising seeing that the acceptance of gay marriage is far outpacing the support of gay intercourse.
Post menopausal women are hardly the only group of peoples that can't do their part in baby creation. Why point fingers?
Because it only takes one small group to invalidate his argument. Did you want me to list every group of people that can get married that are incapable of having children?
Reaching to be offended. .......
If my choice of wording somehow offended you, well, I don't know what to tell you.
The reason that gbaji's point about marriage and rearing children is moot is because child creation is not, nor ever has been required to be married, and not simply because a menopausal woman can no longer have kids.
It wasn't incorrect, it was only incomplete.
Edited, Mar 12th 2014 8:42pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Gbaji, you are so caught up in a fantasy world that I seriously question your ability to think critically about the matter.
I understand that heterosexual sex can and often does result in the pregnancy and birth of additional human beings. What I don't understand is why that should be a requirement in order for two adults to make a commitment to one another and have their legal rights of partnership protected under the law.
I understand that heterosexual sex can and often does result in the pregnancy and birth of additional human beings. What I don't understand is why that should be a requirement in order for two adults to make a commitment to one another and have their legal rights of partnership protected under the law.
Recent Visitors: 442
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (442)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Texas Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC