Samira wrote:
Now, you KNOW natural disasters only strike sinful areas. Houston, Miami, the Great Plains.
Uh oh. I'm in DC. I'm f*cked!
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 5:39pm by Dozer
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow
Uh oh. I'm in DC. I'm f*cked!
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 5:39pm by Dozer
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,
And by regular you mean once or twice a year.
Quote:
This is @#%^ing hilarious coming from you, who try to convince us all about how much booty you get on a regular basis, you @#%^ing hypocrite.
And by regular you mean once or twice a year.
Only once or twice a year? Some playboy you are.
Ambrya wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
But it really isn't about the money, or the kids. It's about backing the Republicans party line.
But Gbaji's BS isn't the Republican party line. The Pubes (and hell, even Virus himself) are at least honest enough to give homophobic rationale for their homophobic agenda. Gbaji is literally the only person I've seen ANYWHERE who espouses that particular rationale for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Sigh... So my argument is invalid purely because you don't hear it often enough? You aren't the first person to take this approach. And the last time someone did, I proceeded to link page after page after page of editorials and blogs and articles and quotes from numerous people all making the same argument as I am. The reason you don't hear it is because the only people the mainstream media ever puts on the TV for you to see or hear are people saying what Varus is saying, and people arguing about how bad people who say what Varus is saying are.
You're playing to the strawman.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
publiusvarus wrote:
And by regular you mean once or twice a year.
Sex? Out of wedlock?! Better shape up on that pre-marital sex front, Varus, or it is an earthquake for you!
gbaji wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
But it really isn't about the money, or the kids. It's about backing the Republicans party line.
But Gbaji's BS isn't the Republican party line. The Pubes (and hell, even Virus himself) are at least honest enough to give homophobic rationale for their homophobic agenda. Gbaji is literally the only person I've seen ANYWHERE who espouses that particular rationale for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Sigh... So my argument is invalid purely because you don't hear it often enough? You aren't the first person to take this approach. And the last time someone did, I proceeded to link page after page after page of editorials and blogs and articles and quotes from numerous people all making the same argument as I am. The reason you don't hear it is because the only people the mainstream media ever puts on the TV for you to see or hear are people saying what Varus is saying, and people arguing about how bad people who say what Varus is saying are.
You're playing to the strawman.
Strawman is all yours. Par for the course, I suppose.
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 5:11pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,
And by regular you mean once or twice a year.
Quote:
This is @#%^ing hilarious coming from you, who try to convince us all about how much booty you get on a regular basis, you @#%^ing hypocrite.
And by regular you mean once or twice a year.
So you are lying to us about all the co-eds you bang? The ones that can't stay out of your awesome car, and fawn over your "bulging" muscles while you pay $150 for dinner?
Either way, you're having sex outside of marriage, and you're being promiscuous. You're a hypocrite.
Varus wrote:
Quote:
I can't believe you then have the audacity to bring Christianity into it, as if you were some pious innocent instead of one of the sinful that you hate so very, very much.
Hate? I don't hate anyone. Just because I see the inherent danger in govn promoting immoral lifestyles, and don't mind voicing those opinions, doesn't mean I hate anyone. You're the one who seems filled with hate anytime someone says something you don't like or agree with.
Yes, sometimes I really hate you. You sound like a hateful little prick who wants people to suffer. I hate people like that. I hate people who can't find a shred of compassion for anyone other than themselves. Who are so selfish that they can't see beyond their own front yard.
But, then, I'm not espousing a religion that's supposedly based on love. You're such a hypocrite, Varus. Really. It's disturbing. And I don't believe for a second that you don't hate these people. I can find no other reason for you to talk as much **** as you do.
I find churchgoing to be one of the most unimpressive displays of Christian nature.
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 5:18pm by Sweetums
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 5:18pm by Sweetums
publiusvarus wrote:
No 300$ an hour hookers for me this year.
Hahahahaha you twit.
publiusvarus wrote:
I've been to church 2 out 3 times this year so far.
MDenham wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
I've been to church 2 out 3 times this year so far.
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I get that gbaji, for some odd reason, thinks that only "natural children" matter, but that's preposterous. So marriage can be for kids, and still make sense to allow homosexuals to marry.
No. It's about the principle that if we're going to spend taxpayer money on social issues, we should always attempt to do so in ways that acts to avoid a problem rather than simply paying to fix it after the fact. This is because by paying after the fact, you end out actually creating incentives for people to create the problem (or at least reducing the negatives for doing so).
By encouraging the type of couples who produce children to marry, we work to prevent the problem of children born to single mothers from occurring. By paying for people to more easily adopt the children born to single mothers, we aren't actually fixing the problem, are we?
It's essentially the same reason why conservatives disagree with welfare. It's not because we want poor people to suffer, but because we believe that we're not actually fixing the problems that cause people to become poor, but just making the state of poverty less uncomfortable. We're treating the symptoms of the problem, but not the cause. The cause of poverty is a lack of jobs. By taxing the businesses and individuals who create jobs in order to provide benefits for those without jobs, we're adding to the cause while treating only the symptom.
Same deal here. You want to treat the symptom that results when children are born outside a marriage by expanding the legal criteria for marriage to include couples who can't themselves produce children, with the idea that they could then adopt the children from the heterosexual couples who don't marry. That doesn't address the problem though, just the symptom. And it also makes the problem worse. As we open the criteria for marriage, it becomes less "special", and thus will be entered into less seriously and less often by the very group we most want to enter into it. We've already created a number of ill-thought government programs which act to reduce the disadvantage to heterosexual couples for having children out of wedlock, and in some cases (EITC specifically) actively encourage it. This becomes just one more factor in a decision which is already difficult enough to get people to make. It may seem minor, but it will have an impact.
It's just the wrong way to approach the issue IMO...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
bsphil wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Gbaji is literally the only person I've seen ANYWHERE who espouses that particular rationale for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Nowhere in the response you quoted is there mention of invalidation of your argument due to the frequency at which it is said.
Really? You can't see where that happened? Seriously?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
No. It's about the principle that if we're going to spend taxpayer money on social issues, we should always attempt to do so in ways that acts to avoid a problem rather than simply paying to fix it after the fact. This is because by paying after the fact, you end out actually creating incentives for people to create the problem (or at least reducing the negatives for doing so).
By encouraging the type of couples who produce children to marry, we work to prevent the problem of children born to single mothers from occurring. By paying for people to more easily adopt the children born to single mothers, we aren't actually fixing the problem, are we?
This also does not incentivize women putting their children up for adoption, because this may be news to you, but adoption is not pleasant for the mother. It's absolutely heart-wrenching.
Should they remain wards of the state and cost us very real money, through both the foster system and the criminal system? Should we choose to ignore a simple, inexpensive solution, requiring minimal government involvement, that would lead to more well-educated, voting tax payers for the sake of idealism? Wouldn't it be better to take them out of that cycle in the first place and into stable homes where they could actually learn to become productive citizens, and maybe choose stability in lieu of that quick lay?
Quote:
Same deal here. You want to treat the symptom that results when children are born outside a marriage by expanding the legal criteria for marriage to include couples who can't themselves produce children, with the idea that they could then adopt the children from the heterosexual couples who don't marry. That doesn't address the problem though, just the symptom. And it also makes the problem worse. As we open the criteria for marriage, it becomes less "special", and thus will be entered into less seriously and less often by the very group we most want to enter into it. We've already created a number of ill-thought government programs which act to reduce the disadvantage to heterosexual couples for having children out of wedlock, and in some cases (EITC specifically) actively encourage it. This becomes just one more factor in a decision which is already difficult enough to get people to make. It may seem minor, but it will have an impact.
It's just the wrong way to approach the issue IMO...
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 5:56pm by Sweetums
Yeah, marriage is sure special!
Oh, and if there are so many incentives, bonuses and rewards for getting married, why do so many hetero couples (with children) sometimes till decide to remain unmarried?
Oh, and if there are so many incentives, bonuses and rewards for getting married, why do so many hetero couples (with children) sometimes till decide to remain unmarried?
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Gbaji is literally the only person I've seen ANYWHERE who espouses that particular rationale for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Nowhere in the response you quoted is there mention of invalidation of your argument due to the frequency at which it is said.
Really? You can't see where that happened? Seriously?
Not sure what ****** up reality you find yourself in, but:
Ambrya wrote:
Gbaji is literally the only person I've seen ANYWHERE who espouses that particular rationale for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Gbaji is literally the only person I've seen ANYWHERE who espouses that particular rationale for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Nowhere in the response you quoted is there mention of invalidation of your argument due to the frequency at which it is said.
Really? You can't see where that happened? Seriously?
Not sure what @#%^ed up reality you find yourself in, but:
Ambrya wrote:
Gbaji is literally the only person I've seen ANYWHERE who espouses that particular rationale for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Gbaji's argument is invalid for innumerable reasons, the fact that he's the only possessor of it just doesn't happen to be one of them, nor did I ever imply that it was.
Actually if he contends that his reason is the reason why marriage was established in our society with all its legal and economic rights, the fact that he is alone in this rationale is one of the many reasons he's wrong.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Sweetums wrote:
We're never going to actually fix the problem, because we'll never fix human nature. People like sex. People like having sex without commitment. People are going to have babies they don't want to have unless we create a contraceptive that works 100% of the time (not even sterilization has that record) and have a public that is well-informed enough to actually use it.
And yet, over a period of about 60 years, we went from about 3% of children born in this country born to single mothers, to 40%. Maybe you should be asking yourself what we're doing wrong here. And maybe you should listen to the conservatives who for that entire time have been saying "Don't do this! You're undermining marriage", instead of just ignoring them...
Once again, conservatives are saying "Don't do this! You're undermining marriage". Why do you still insist on believing that they must be wrong?
Quote:
This also does not incentivize women putting their children up for adoption, because this may be news to you, but adoption is not pleasant for the mother. It's absolutely heart-wrenching.
You are making the mistake of assuming that people think through the entirety of the consequences of their actions before they make them. Which is odd, since the first part of your post rested on the assumption of the opposite. Women are more likely to have unprotected sex when they know intellectually that abortion is legal and available, and adoption is an option as well. But that's when they're right in the moment and considering the short term action. But upon getting pregnant, and those decisions become reality instead of a theoretical possibility, it's a lot harder for them to go through with them. I didn't say it would increase the rate at which children would be given up for adoption. I said it would make the problem (single women having children) worse.
Also, as has often been stated, none of them intend to be a single mom on welfare either. But again, once the decision to have unprotected sex is made, and a pregnancy results, the theoretical justifications go away and reality sets in. And now, as a single pregnant woman, the choices she has will often lead her to become that single mom on welfare. The very existence of those choices, even though she does not choose them, contributes to the likelihood of making the choice that leads her to that result. It's easy to intellectualize the choices one could make if they end up pregnant, but much much harder to actually make them. Unfortunately, the system seems to be rigged to cause a whole lot of young women to fall into single motherhood. She wont intend to not marry the guy, but maybe he doesn't stick around. Maye he's a jerk. Maybe she realizes that since the two of them make so little money, that she and her child are actually better off financially if they *don't* get married (a sad fact far far too often).
It's not about choosing the end result. It's about making a succession of choices, each of which seems reasonable at the time, that result in an end result which would not have been chosen at the start. And what's happened is that we've created a combination of laws, programs, and cultural changes which really does seem almost designed to bring about this result.
Quote:
Should they remain wards of the state and cost us very real money, through both the foster system and the criminal system? Should we choose to ignore a simple, inexpensive solution, requiring minimal government involvement, that would lead to more well-educated, voting tax payers for the sake of idealism? Wouldn't it be better to take them out of that cycle in the first place and into stable homes where they could actually learn to become productive citizens, and maybe choose stability in lieu of that quick lay?
It would be better if more women got married before getting pregnant. Don't you agree? Trying to help them once they are in that state seems noble, but ultimately is self defeating.
Quote:
Oh please, marriage lost it's "special-ness" as soon as you could get a drive-thru in Vegas.
So it's ok to follow the slippery slope to the next step? Why?
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 6:12pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
Actually if he contends that his reason is the reason why marriage was established in our society with all its legal and economic rights, the fact that he is alone in this rationale is one of the many reasons he's wrong.
Except that I'm not. My argument is just rarely heard because most of the focus is on the "anti-gay" religious component of the argument. And that's almost certainly because it's the easiest thing to pick apart. Hence, a strawman.
What most people are talking about "today" does not tell us why the thing we're talking about exists. Ignorance is plentiful, right? Are you seriously arguing that the "homosexuality is a sin" folks are the determinants of the true reason why marriage benefits exist in our legal system? Isn't that a bit strange for you to place such high value in the positions of people you disagree with?
These are the same people who will argue with an absolute straight face that marriage should be restricted from homosexuals because it's a Sacrament from God. Ignoring the fact that not everyone recognizes Catholic Sacraments and ignoring the fact that marriage were performed for a long time before the Catholic Church appeared, and ignoring the fact that marriages continued to be purely secular affairs for almost a thousand years *after* the Catholic Church began and ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church didn't actually codify their list of sacraments until 500 or so years after that.
You're going to take their ignorant ideas about what marriage means in a purely legal context at face value? Why? Just so that it's easier to argue against them? That seems like a cop-out. Why not actually look at the laws, the history of how marriage has been managed, what it does, and ask "why did governments bother to write laws about this stuff"?
I'm sure many religious folks will argue until they are blue in the fact that the reason theft is illegal is because God gave Moses tables with 10 commandments on them, and one of them said "thou shalt not steal". Does that mean that if someone argues for having laws against stealing on purely logical and societal "cost" that his argument is wrong because there's a whole bunch of people just saying that it's a sin?
That's what you're doing. It's silly. You're trying to argue the equivalent of removing murder as a crime by pointing to all the religious folks calling it a sin and insisting that our laws should not reflect religious beliefs. Look at the actual issue and assess it for it's own values. Don't just blindly follow (or refuse) what people say.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Except you are, gbaji. Saying anything else is being both disingenuous and inconsistent.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
publiusvarus wrote:
Ambrya,
Homophobic? I'm not afaid of homosexuality. I am afraid of what the homosexual agenda is doing to the morals of this country. Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle choice, like incest and polygamy, and I don't think our govn should be in the business of endorsing unhealthy life choices.
Quote:
But Gbaji's BS isn't the Republican party line. The Pubes (and hell, even Virus himself) are at least honest enough to give homophobic rationale for their homophobic agenda.
Homophobic? I'm not afaid of homosexuality. I am afraid of what the homosexual agenda is doing to the morals of this country. Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle choice, like incest and polygamy, and I don't think our govn should be in the business of endorsing unhealthy life choices.
Are you aware that polygamy is culturally accepted in many countries?
I used to care about my sig. Then I got mocked and butt-hurt. I shall commence with the self-pity now.
gbaji wrote:
Once again, conservatives are saying "Don't do this! You're undermining marriage". Why do you still insist on believing that they must be wrong?
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
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Recent Visitors: 151
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (151)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC