let's make both hetero/**** relationships w/o a child "civil unions"
Then when you pop out a screamer, or adopt one, you get upgraded to the deluxe "marriage" package.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
Prop 8 OverturnedFollow
#478
Aug 10 2010 at 7:33 PM
Yeah, see, I wasn't gonna go dig out my hip-waders to go slogging around looking for that passage. Which conveniently agrees with my assertion in the previous post.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#479
Aug 10 2010 at 8:04 PM
Debalic wrote:
Yeah, see, I wasn't gonna go dig out my hip-waders to go slogging around looking for that passage. Which conveniently agrees with my assertion in the previous post.
#480
Aug 10 2010 at 8:34 PM
Allegory wrote:
Well yes, the point being that it doesn't "shut people up" so much as it "gradually diminishes in prevalence over an extended period of time."
Yeah, "everybody shuts the **** up about it" was an exaggeration. You know what the intended meaning was, obviously
#481
Aug 11 2010 at 4:55 AM
gbaji wrote:
If you can't get knocked up accidentally, then the state doesn't care if you are married or not while bumping uglies.
#482
Aug 11 2010 at 6:22 AM
The state certainly has a history of caring about whether and how people had sex in the past. Of course to acknowledge that now would mean that disallowing gay people to marry each other is simply discriminatory, and that's not a narrative you want to pursue.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#483
Aug 11 2010 at 6:29 AM
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you can't get knocked up accidentally, then the state doesn't care if you are married or not while bumping uglies.
This has been brought up before. Gbaji's response is that requiring fertility tests as a condition to marriage benefits is too costly, so people are put in blanket categories (man + woman = some chance of accidental babies; man + man or woman + woman = no chance of accidental babies).
So in other words, fertility tests outweigh the benefits conferred by marriage. You know, I'd like to see Gbaji's data on that, since, in his own words, it is purely for financial reasons that he is against gay marriage.
Put me as another one in the "give federal benefits to those who have babies, not those who are married" category.
#484Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 6:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I've pointed out numerous times that unless you open marriage to everybody and everything, it will always be discriminatory. Allowing same sex marriage will not change how discriminatory marriage is, so using "it's discrimination" is a horrible argument unless you are fighting to end the discrimination. We all know that you're not, because people get upset when you bring up polygamy, incest,etc., so please drop the "it's discrimination, so it's wrong" and say what you mean, "it's wrong to discriminate against sex".
#485
Aug 11 2010 at 7:02 AM
Wow, that's one lameass argument. Since you don't open it up so anyone can marry anyone, it's ok to discriminate.
#486Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 7:04 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) no, how about you reread what I said... I was going to bold the part that contradicts that stupid interpretation, but I want you to find it yourself. I'll teach you all how to comprehend one day.
#487
Aug 11 2010 at 7:11 AM
Your inability or refusal to follow the rather obvious subtext is not my concern. I have stipulated before that in the context of these discussions I am referring solely to the union of two adult humans of sound mind. Whether they're related or not is less important to me.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#488Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 7:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm trying to help your argument...
#489
Aug 11 2010 at 7:57 AM
I think it's pretty obvious that we are talking specifically about two adults who are of sound mind Alma. I mean you yourself said we need to approach different categories separately and I think most of us agree.
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
#490Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 8:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This is seriously not that difficult to understand
#491
Aug 11 2010 at 8:20 AM
Almalieque wrote:
point 1: You can't argue that discrimination in general is wrong if your argument discriminates as well.
Quote:
stuff about Samira
The reason we use two adults of sound mind is because that is currently one of the criteria we use, and there is no reason to change it. It also applies to way way more then just marriage. If you have a reason to change it go for it, but otherwise, you should stop complaining about how we're framing the discourse. If we start talking about marrying toasters it quickly becomes meaningless.
Edited, Aug 11th 2010 9:21am 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
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#492
Aug 11 2010 at 8:26 AM
It is useless to engage Alma. This is how he controls conversations. /shrug
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#493Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 8:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) WTF are you talking about?!?!!.. Why don't you go back and actually read those words.. COMPREHENSION people, COMPREHENSION
#494
Aug 11 2010 at 8:28 AM
Samira wrote:
It is useless to engage Alma. This is how he controls conversations. /shrug
Edited, Aug 11th 2010 9:29am 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
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#495
Aug 11 2010 at 8:38 AM
Almalieque wrote:
point 1: You can't argue that discrimination in general is wrong if your argument discriminates as well.
Of course you can. That's pretty much the definition of "in general" -- typically true but holding to exceptions. Fruit pies, in general, taste good. Killing people, in general, is wrong. Trees, in general, have green foliage. Birds, in general, are capable of flight.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#496
Aug 11 2010 at 8:44 AM
Quote:
I've pointed out numerous times that unless you open marriage to everybody and everything, it will always be discriminatory. Allowing same sex marriage will not change how discriminatory marriage is, so using "it's discrimination" is a horrible argument unless you are fighting to end the discrimination. We all know that you're not, because people get upset when you bring up polygamy, incest,etc., so please drop the "it's discrimination, so it's wrong" and say what you mean, "it's wrong to discriminate against sex".
You would think by saying that, it would be too easy, but since *some* discrimination against sex is acceptable and others aren't, I guess each case has to be treated independently.
I'm in favor of both removing the state benefits associated with marriage, as well as removal/reduction of the restrictions on whom can marry. Having a benefit program for those who are raising children that is independent of marriage would be a solution for the financial gap issue.
Just as Planned.
#497Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 8:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're right, I was wrong. Gasp, see how simple that is! Let me rephrase that to say "You can't say discrimination is wrong and then have an argument that supports it".
#498
Aug 11 2010 at 8:50 AM
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm in favor of both removing the state benefits associated with marriage [...]
I'm not entirely sure what encompasses the "state benefits." Does that include inheritence rights, not being forced to testify against one another, and visiting one another in the hospital, or are those different rights all together?
Edited, Aug 11th 2010 9:50am by Belkira
#499
Aug 11 2010 at 8:51 AM
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm in favor of both removing the state benefits associated with marriage, as well as removal/reduction of the restrictions on whom can marry. Having a benefit program for those who are raising children that is independent of marriage would be a solution for the financial gap issue.
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
#500
Aug 11 2010 at 8:51 AM
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I also think that a good 90% of his posts are him complaining how no one understands him. 
This kind of existential angst just further reinforces my notion that alma is indeed a teenage girl.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#501
Aug 11 2010 at 8:53 AM
Belkira wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what encompasses the "state benefits." Does that include inheritence rights, not being forced to testify against one another, and visiting one another in the hospital, or are those different rights all together?
That's a really good question, what about spouse's debt? Would you inherent that as well? What about alimony? Just curious
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 410
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (410)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC