Calif court upholds Prop 8...sortaFollow

Maybe the "no gay marriage" people should put their energies into helping find a cure for AIDS and then it'd be all good.

Well get on it. I'm the ideas man here so you're going to have to be the muscle. Round up your "no gay marriage" pals and get an AIDS research charity started.

Wrong. Having gay sex does not lead to AIDS. I guarantee you I can find two gay people who have had sex their entire lives together and never contracted HIV.


Please see the last discussion where this point was brought up by you and subsequently shot down.


Mothers don't need to sleep with people to get pregnant.

And breast-feeding and high-risk hetero sex are also on that list. You say hookers, I say it's unprotected sex. Which makes more sense, as it is described as "Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection." A hooker with a condom is less dangerous than sex with a stranger unprotected.

Sin taxes don't really go to find cures for specific ailments.

You have to go be fucking kidding me.



I've said it in the OoT forum. Other people have said it. Let's just focus on your child argument.

Fact 1: Marriage benefits exist partly to encourage a family unit by having children.
Fact 2: A heterosexual couple can have a child in their family in a variety of manners, including sexual reproduction.
Fact 3: A homosexual couple can have a child in their family in every manner a heterosexual couple can, but they cannot produce by sexual reproduction.
Fact 4: Heterosexual couples are given the benefits for having said child.
Fact 5: Homosexual couples are not.
Fact 6: The ability to sexually reproduce is determined by biological differences between the two couples.
Fact 7: Laws that may pass that discriminate based on biological differences normally do not last very long for obvious reasons. Example: A law that only allows brunettes to receive federal loans for education.
Fact 8: Heterosexual couples are given the benefits because politicians, and presumably society as well, feel there is sufficient need to give heterosexual couples these benefits.
Fact 9: This creates biological discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. Refer to Fact 7 for why this normally does not stand.



It was essentially illegal to be gay. No other option existed.

I know this may be hard for you to understand, but laws are often changed as a future, unforeseen need arises.



It's not a huge stretch at all when you're aren't a moron.

What really entertains me is that the support you gave as an example is:
A) Nothing anyone has every said in this thread or any thread about this topic.
B) Does not support showing how the "definition of marriage has changed."
C) Most likely not something anyone arguing for gay marriage would say.

Please try not to make it so obvious that you change our discussion in your head and reply to what you want us to be saying rather than what we do say.

False. And I've clarified this dozens of times in past threads. Marriage benefits exist as an incentive for the father of a child to stick around and help with the care of the woman he's impregnated and the children he's fathered. We create the institution of marriage as a set of civil and social agreements designed to facilitate that process, but the incentives to get men to enter into it in the first place are separate.

Historically, social pressures and laws enforced the idea of marriage. Today, we use a set of incentives to make marriage economically attractive. Both serve the same purpose.


You're doing what I've continually pointed out is wrong with this argument. You're confusing the actual state of marriage, the social effects of marriage, and the civil contracts of marriage with the incentive and enforcement of marriage. The former group are the things that make up a marriage in a given society. The latter group is the things that the state/society do to try to get people to enter into a state of marriage in the first place.


When we talk about obtaining a marriage license, and the state "recognizing" a marriage and providing benefits to those who meet a set of criteria surrounding marriage, we're talking about the latter group of things. Because anyone can enter into a state of marriage. You don't need the government for that at all. What we're talking about here is the government's role in encouraging people to do that.

We have a need to encourage heterosexual couples to marry. We don't have any need to encourage gay couples to do so. They're free to. No one's stopping them. But there's no reason to provide incentives or rewards to them for having done so. That's the point you all keep missing over and over and over no matter how many times I explain it.

All the rest of your "facts" are flawed because they derive from a false staring point.




Then why don't you give a reason other than that? Seriously. All anyone seems to use to argue this is that gay people should get the same stuff straight people do. Period. I'm sorry. I think that's a weak argument. I think it fails because if we decide tomorrow that the group we want to have the same stuff is <insert group here> the argument is just as valid.


I'll ask again. What about your argument supports the idea of allowing gay couples to marry, but not close relations, or multiple partners? And I don't mean "But I'm just arguing for gay marriage!". I mean, what about the argument you are using *for* gay marriage excludes other groups while allowing gays?

So let's examine it. If Russian noblewomen in the eighteenth century is too esoteric, let's dig into the political motivations of pension reform and spousal guarantees in the 1970s. This is law that directly affects your taxes (since it applied to government pensions as well) and so I think an in depth examination of what people said they were trying to accomplish will be extremely informative. Are you game?Stop scurrying around in a panic, trying to change the subject. The only thing I am interested in right now is your claim that the benefits conferred via marriage exist primarily in order to encourage young couple to marry prior to having children. So far you have absolutely failed to present any of your own evidence proving your claim and now that I'm presenting evidence refuting it, you're in a frantic scramble to make the topic something else.

Can you defend your claim with real historical evidence or not? That's the only question I'm interested in. Not that I think you'll ever give a straight yes/no answer. You have too much invested in your little delusion.

Edited, May 29th 2009 10:04pm by Jophiel

As many times as it takes for you to wake up and realize you're spewing complete and utter bullshit.