Calif court upholds Prop 8...sorta :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#152 May 29 2009 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

gbaji wrote:

False. And I've clarified this dozens of times in past threads.

What the hell are you talking about? You have tried to claim time and time and time again that gay marriage can't be allowed because gay people can't naturally have children, and that's what marriage rights/benefits are about. It's become such a fucking joke that it's been repeated across every single new thread. Everyone mentions trying to head off this stupid argument, and you always try to act like we're missing the point. Don't start changing it now.

gbaji wrote:

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

No, the vast majority of them are still true. Please though. Point out which of them are purely opinions.

gbaji wrote:

Then why don't you give a reason other than that?

CBD wrote:

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.

Are you fucking blind or just trying to prove that you just make sh*t up to prove your point?

gbaji wrote:

All anyone seems to use to argue this is that gay people should get the same stuff straight people do.

Find a post where someone said exactly that.

gbaji wrote:

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?

Two quotes for you. One you've seen before, the other because she said it better than I could.

Nixnot wrote:

Dammit Gbaji, knock it off.

Incest is an issue of relationship.
Polygamy is an issue of quantity.
Pedophilia is an issue of age.
Homosexuality is an issue of gender.

Stop equating them, stop using them in the same argument.

Samira wrote:

I have no problem accepting that these other groups, the ashtray suitors and what not, will be encouraged to make their case. So let them.

Edited, May 30th 2009 1:41am by CBD

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#153 May 29 2009 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good

Omegavegeta

View User Forum

Sage

8,236 posts

Gbaji wrote:

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.

Then shouldn't we provide benefits to gays in order to provide an incentive to get them to adopt children, &, *gasp*, maybe even reduce abortion rates by providing MORE people with an incentive to adopt?

Your personally feelings on gay adoption aside, it's legal, so tell me why we shouldn't provide these incentives (marriage benefits)?

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#154 May 29 2009 at 10:34 PM Rating: Excellent

Xsarus

View User Forum

10,601 posts

Gbaji is so wrapped up in his thought experiment of how he thinks it should be he can't look into reality and see what actually is. It's pretty sad really, to witness someone so entwined with their delusion that they can't even differentiate between what's actually there and what only exists in their theory. I feel for you Gbaji, I really do. It's a somewhat interesting idea, unfortunately it's not real.

Your whole premise is based on the idea that marriage is only about the kids. No one is saying that kids aren't a part of the motivations for our marriage laws, however there are a lot more reasons, and overall they have more impact then the kids, which is only one small aspect of the whole. Your assertion is indefensible, which is why you can't really defend it. It's an interesting idea, and if we ignore most of reality it makes for a somewhat convincing argument, although I still disagree. However, accepting that marriage is in fact not all about the kids, your whole argument falls apart. When you press for examples and they are provided, you argue that people are being too specific. How about you provide some actual facts/data/something that defends your premise?

Edited, May 30th 2009 1:47am by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#155 May 29 2009 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591797278547

Sage

3,829 posts

You are assuming that people are opposed to these other forms of marriage and therefore attempting a sort of "gotcha!" hoist-em-on-their-own-petard accusation of hypocrisy. It won't work, at least not with me.

gbaji wrote:

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?

In answer to your question: Absolutely nothing, which is why you won't see me, personally, arguing against marriage for those other groups.

Like most other people, I feel an instinctual abhorrence for the idea of incestuous relations. Marriage between close relations does pose a risk of chromosomal abnormalities due to the reinforcement of faulty genes versus the dilution of faulty genes that would happen if one waded out a bit further into the gene pool, and this is why most "higher" animal species have an instinctive prohibition against it under optimal survival conditions (i.e. the availability of other mates.)

However, we don't deny blacks the right to marry in order to prevent sickle cell anemia, nor do we deny Jews the right to marry in order to prevent Tay-Sachs. Therefore, there's no real grounds to deny close relations the right to marry. Do I find the idea repugnant? Sure. But at least I'm honest enough to admit that my repugnance is a personal prejudice and should have no bearing on the rights of others. So long as the parties are fully informed, consenting adults, I'd stand aside with my "live and let live" philosophy firmly in place.

As for polygamy, I've said it before and I'll say it again. So long as all the parties are consenting adults free of cultural/social coercion (i.e. not victims of, for instance, some of the obscure fundamentalist Morman sects that not only practice polygamy but force their young girls into marriages) I see absolutely no reason why a party of three or even more should not be allowed to form a legally recognized family group.

Edited, May 30th 2009 12:16am by Ambrya

▲ Page top

Calif court upholds Prop 8...sortaFollow