« Previous 1 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 104 Next »

This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#702 Aug 12 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Almalieque wrote:

You're just doing the "no, you game". I don't know the rationale and I don't think anyone does.

There isn't one. There are lots of "little" rationales for individual benefits. There is nothing difficult about this to understand and you're at least smart enough to string words together on a keyboard so I can only assume that you're just intentionally ignoring it in order to keep debating a dead point.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#703 Aug 12 2010 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498616216

View User Forum

Scholar

10,012 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Suppose Susie is dating Bob. Billy, her brother, can't say he has less rights than Bob because Bob can marry her and he can't. This is because the incest restriction applies to everyone and Billy just so happened to fall in love with his sister, which makes marriage unfair to him. Billy can say that the law isn't fair, but he can't say that he isn't being treated equally because no one can marry their sibling.

You can not argue Incest with SSM. It's an automatic loss. Deal with the issue at hand. If you feel it's of such a great importance that incestual relationships should be able to marry, deal with it at the appropriate venue. This thread is not it.

#704 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 3:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) They have the right to marry, they are seeking the privilege to marry the person that they just so happen to fall in love with.

#705 Aug 12 2010 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Draxyle wrote:

Gbaji wrote:

What is being demanded is *not* a right.

That's the thing though, that's more of an opinion and I would think homosexual couples would greatly disagree.

They have the right to marry, they are seeking the privilege to marry the person that they just so happen to fall in love with.

And the fact that they can't is a trivial problem in your book. WE GET IT.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#706 Aug 12 2010 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

In your example, it is still equal because sham marriages are also illegal to heterosexuals. Sham marriages are only checked by the government when benefits are involved, i.e. citizenship and money. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be any Vegas weddings or quick court weddings. Each couple would have to go through marital training and prove that they love each other. Further more, even if you blatantly said that you didn't love each other, as long as met the requirements of a "couple", i.e living together, then it wouldn't matter. There's no way to measure a couple's love.

The restrictions are all the same, it doesn't change based on your sex, sexuality or who you fall in love with. If you just so happen to fall in love with someone that falls outside of those restrictions, then you can claim it's not fair, but you can't claim it's not equal.

Heterosexuals can marry who they love. Homosexuals are restricted from marrying who they love.

That is a restriction against homosexuals that is not against heterosexuals.

#707 Aug 12 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

ALmalieque wrote:

You're just doing the "no, you game". I don't know the rationale and I don't think anyone does. If anyone does, then show it. If it exists, then there shouldn't be any debate about SSM, because the rationale is there. It either supports it or it doesn't support it. You can further argue changes against that rationale, but future arguments don't affect current laws.

There is no overriding rationale. That's the point. There's no unified theme that applies to all the different parts of marriage, and so it's silly to try and approach it like there is. Gbaji states that the overriding theme is to encourage people to get married so that more kids will be born in stable families, but refuses to defend that with anything besides it's obvious. Welcome to the conversation, glad you could make it.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 4:30pm by Xsarus

That's because what you are implying is that there was no one main reason on why the government decided to support the concept of marriage. I'm not denying that they are several other rationales or benefits that came up later, but it is silly to think that people "all of the sudden" came to the government with completely unrelated reasoning for the government to get involve with marriage. Furthermore, that the government just said "look at all these people asking for our interjection in marriage, we must get involved without actually dissecting their logic to see if it is actually beneficial to anyone." There had to be a leading reasoning behind the interjection. Claiming otherwise is just silly. I'm not claiming I know what it is, but I'm not silly enough to think that people all of the sudden had all of these unrelated issues that they wanted to address all at once that just so happened to be covered by marriage by total coincidence.

#708 Aug 12 2010 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

gbaji wrote:

What is being demanded is *not* a right. It's a case of identity politics and a desire to look at what someone else gets and demand that another group get the same thing. Not because they need it. Not because there's any rational reason to provide it to them. But purely because someone else gets it and it's easy to convince ignorant people that it's somehow wrong to not provide it to that second group.

Everything you just said can be applied to wanting marriage benefits for straight couples.

In b4 nonsense about marriage benefits being created solely to encourage couples to marry before having kids.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

#709 Aug 12 2010 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

Quote:

but it is silly to think that people "all of the sudden" came to the government with completely unrelated reasoning for the government to get involve with marriage

Smiley: dubious

You do realize that the state of marriage isn't something that was just all of a sudden created one afternoon right? People came with bits and pieces and bits and pieces were added for a whole variety of reasons depending on the culture at the time and what the people wanted. That's sort of the whole point. Of course people didn't come all of a sudden, it changed over time. Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 4:56pm 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

#710 Aug 12 2010 at 3:56 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

You're just doing the "no, you game". I don't know the rationale and I don't think anyone does.

There isn't one. There are lots of "little" rationales for individual benefits. There is nothing difficult about this to understand and you're at least smart enough to string words together on a keyboard so I can only assume that you're just intentionally ignoring it in order to keep debating a dead point.

I'm thinking the same about you.. I just say agree to disagree since it appears that you are clearly in denial.

Kaelish wrote:

You can not argue Incest with SSM. It's an automatic loss. Deal with the issue at hand. If you feel it's of such a great importance that incestual relationships should be able to marry, deal with it at the appropriate venue. This thread is not it.

Why don't you reread what was written without focusing on the key words and you'll see that my point was comparing equality and fairness and not incest vs SSM.

Belkira wrote:

Heterosexuals can marry who they love. Homosexuals are restricted from marrying who they love.

That is a restriction against homosexuals that is not against heterosexuals.

Are you trolling or are you being serious? Honest question, you don't seem like the troll type, so I will try to explain it.

Not true.. A heterosexual can't just marry any other person they love, they have restrictions as well. The same restrictions as a homosexual.

As a human, you have the same exact restrictions as the next human. The government doesn't care who you fall in love with. If you fall in love with someone outside of those restrictions, i.e a married person, then it is a matter of fairness and not equality.

You have yet proven that wrong.

#711 Aug 12 2010 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1609114725154

Sage

61 posts

Quote:

They have the right to marry, they are seeking the privilege to marry the person that they just so happen to fall in love with.

And I have to ask what is wrong with that? It just makes it clear to me that there's too many people out there that don't understand homosexuality whatsoever.

Is the relationship of a man and a man or a woman and a women less valuable or irrelevant compared to the relationship between a man and a woman for any actual reason?

#712 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 4:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow, you totally got me.. I thought the government interjection in marriage was done during a lunch break one day. The fact that there were so many "bits and pieces" supports the fact that the solution had to address them all by having one single theme, else it wouldn't work. That's sort of the whole point.

#713 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 4:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I never said there was something wrong with it, just don't pretend that you're being denied rights when you aren't. Make legitimate arguments.

#714 Aug 12 2010 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

It's not a solution alma. Every time something new came up, women's rights for example, they had to examine it and figure out if it was worth adding to the current state of marriage, and each item had it's own rational. It's not like there were a whole bunch of pieces and then people put them together to form marriage. It's more like there is this thing called marriage, and slowly people have taken parts off and added new parts. There is no overriding theme. Please, Please, show me some evidence that there is one.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 5:04pm 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

#715 Aug 12 2010 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Draxyle wrote:

Gbaji wrote:

What is being demanded is *not* a right.

That's the thing though, that's more of an opinion and I would think homosexual couples would greatly disagree.

They have the right to marry, they are seeking the privilege to marry the person that they just so happen to fall in love with.

They don't have the right to marry (outside of 5 states, and the federal government doesn't recognize them). They are seeking the right to marry as well as the privileges.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

#716 Aug 12 2010 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:

Heterosexuals can marry who they love. Homosexuals are restricted from marrying who they love.

That is a restriction against homosexuals that is not against heterosexuals.

Are you trolling or are you being serious? Honest question, you don't seem like the troll type, so I will try to explain it.

Not true.. A heterosexual can't just marry any other person they love, they have restrictions as well. The same restrictions as a homosexual.

As a human, you have the same exact restrictions as the next human. The government doesn't care who you fall in love with. If you fall in love with someone outside of those restrictions, i.e a married person, then it is a matter of fairness and not equality.

You have yet proven that wrong.

Are you trolling?

In addition to the other restrictions placed on heterosexual couples homosexuals who fall in love with other adult humans of the same sex are not allowed to marry. Homosexuals do not fall in love with adult humans of the opposite sex. Therefore, they are restricted from marrying the adult human individual that they fall in love with, while heterosexuals are not restricted from marrying the adult human individual that they fall in love with.

It's seriously not that hard, Alma.

#717 Aug 12 2010 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Draxyle wrote:

Gbaji wrote:

What is being demanded is *not* a right.

That's the thing though, that's more of an opinion and I would think homosexual couples would greatly disagree.

They have the right to marry, they are seeking the privilege to marry the person that they just so happen to fall in love with.

AGAIN. Marrying someone that you are not in love with is a sham marriage which is against the law.

#718 Aug 12 2010 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Draxyle wrote:

ALmalieque wrote:

They have the right to marry, they are seeking the privilege to marry the person that they just so happen to fall in love with.

And I have to ask what is wrong with that? It just makes it clear to me that there's too many people out there that don't understand homosexuality whatsoever.

Is the relationship of a man and a man or a woman and a women less valuable or irrelevant compared to the relationship between a man and a woman for any actual reason?

I never said there was something wrong with it, just don't pretend that you're being denied rights when you aren't. Make legitimate arguments.

For the children who like to pick apart semantics, gay people are being denied rights that are bestowed upon non-gay people; The right to marry the person of choice if that person is the same sex as you.

That is not a hard concept to grasp. You can fold up the words anyway you want. You can question why the states provide for a thing called marriage with the rights and responsibilities that it does....you can add to Jophs world-devouring post count by asking why in many different and unique ways, but there is not a suitable answer that can be simplified to A+B = C. It is, it's they way people have lived through time and place, it's been modified and updated and downdated, and survived since always. Take a dam poll. We're people. Why do we live in ************** families? It's an entire different debate than gay marriage. If there is a specific aspect to the question of why marriage is a legal union that somehow added substance to this debate let's hear it. Making and rearing babies would be a valid argument if it were actually a requirement of marriage. It may have, once in cave man law or something been a reason for legalizing marriages. But it, clearly, no longer is.

Is there sufficient harm to society by denying one group rights that are given to another group? This is arguable to some I guess. Though I'm certainly of the mind that there is not really any harm to society for granting two people of the same sex the right to marry.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#719 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Really, so you're telling me if a man and a woman goes to the court house, they ask their sexuality and will be denied if they are homosexual?

#720 gbaji, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 4:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sure. But every time that question is posed, and examples of how their rights are being infringed are presented, we hear about how they have a "right" to visit their spouse in the hospital, and the "right" to share their lives together, and the "right" to joint property. What we don't ever hear is an argument that they have a "right" to pay taxes on the married column, or the "right" to get their spouses SS payments when they die, or the "right", not just to be included on their spouses health care, but for the expense to be pre-tax.

#721 Aug 12 2010 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Really, so you're telling me if a man and a woman goes to the court house, they ask their sexuality and will be denied if they are homosexual?

We're all being denied the ability to legally marry someone of our own sex. Why?

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#722 gbaji, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 4:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As opposed to what other reason? I've asked this before. What is the "state objective" for creating those benefits? We can say that the state created food stamps in order to make sure that poor people have at least some minimum amount of food and don't starve to death. Thus, it's rational to limit the benefits of food stamps to those people who would otherwise go hungry if they didn't get them.

#723 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 4:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above..

#724 Aug 12 2010 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Alma? That's the wrong argument btw. It fails for a number of reasons.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#725 Aug 12 2010 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

lolongthread

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#726 Aug 12 2010 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:

Are you trolling?

In addition to the other restrictions placed on heterosexual couples homosexuals who fall in love with other adult humans of the same sex are not allowed to marry. Homosexuals do not fall in love with adult humans of the opposite sex. Therefore, they are restricted from marrying the adult human individual that they fall in love with, while heterosexuals are not restricted from marrying the adult human individual that they fall in love with.

It's seriously not that hard, Alma.

So if I'm love with a married woman, you're telling me that I can marry her? What about a woman who's in a coma? How about my cousin? How about my sister or mother? What if me and my male roommate wanted to get married for the benefits, then we could ale to because we're heterosexual right? So, it's ok for heterosexuals to marry someone of the same sex but not homosexuals?

These restrictions apply to everyone.. The simple fact that homosexuals will only fall in love with someone of the same sex is a matter of fairness not equality. The fact that it's equal is why it's unfair.

So your answer is "Yes, I am a troll?" Because that is what I'm inferring from this answer.

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:

AGAIN. Marrying someone that you are not in love with is a sham marriage which is against the law.

So all vegas weddings and court weddings are illegal? Please Belkira, tell me how the government measures the love of a couple? Tell me... I want to know.. Because I know a lot of people who got married recently that barely knew each other, let alone "Love" each other.

It only becomes a problem when there are benefits involved.

Sham marriages are illegal. A marriage made for any reason other than love is illegal. If people getting married in Vegas and in a courtroom aren't doing so because they love one another, it is illegal. Just because they don't get caught, that doesn't make it legal. You yourself told Dyadem in another thread that his brother's marriage is not legal because they do not love one another.

Why would a homosexual marry someone of the opposite sex? There would have to be some benefit involved, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Which is why your "homosexuals can marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument moronic and, dare I say it, illogical.

« Previous 1 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 104 Next »

This thread is locked

You cannot post in a locked topic!

Recent Visitors: 251 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (251)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC