Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Their whole culture was still based around religion though. Most of the country was christian, and so thinking that being gay is morally wrong, it would never have come up to allow them to get married. It was absolutely about the religious culture at the time. It wouldn't have occurred to them to allow gay marriage.

Let me get this clear. You're asserting that when the US was founded, the people there looked at marriage and actually said, lets keep excluding the gays, not because it's religiously wrong, but for some other reason? do you really believe that?

Edited, Aug 13th 2010 9:36pm by Xsarus

Why doesn't it count? How about "because the state has an interest in ensuring that there's a previous legal agreement between those who might produce children to mutually provide care for them"? It's about *not* having to run around after the fact trying to legally force the fathers of children to provide care for them after they've decided they don't like their mothers anymore.

That's seriously it.



Then let's add an age limit if that's the issue. But where do you make the cutoff? If you can legally codify exactly at what age it becomes impossible for a couple to produce a child, then by all means, knock yourself out.

The problem is that you're arguing the exception and not the rule. Most heterosexual couples who might consider getting married are going to be young enough to produce children (or young enough that we can't be sure one way or another). Are some of them not going to? Absolutely. But *zero* percent of gay couples will produce a child together. Zero.

Imagine if we were considering whether to provide funding for prostate exams. We might reasonably only provide funding for said exams for men, since only men have prostates and thus only men are at risk of prostate cancer. Imagine if someone argued that it's sexual discrimination, and we should do it anyway, and that women can't get prostate cancer is "moot" as long as not all men will get prostate cancer, but we'll be paying for their exams anyway. If we're wasting money on them, why not waste it on the women as well, right? That's fair!


You'd rightly think that person was clinically insane. And that's pretty much exactly how I view the argument you are using. The fact that not all heterosexual couples will produce children does not change the fact that no gay couples will. Thus, even if we're sometimes going to "waste" the funds spent on marriage benefits to heterosexual couples who don't produce children, that's not a valid reason to pay for said benefits to people who we know for a fact wont.


Does that make more sense? I suspect that the problem is that most of you are looking at this from the perspective of a benefit which people might want (as opposed to a prostate exam, which most people don't). But that's not the reason we fund things. We fund them because they correct for a problem to the state or the people as a whole. We might choose to fund prostate exams because the cost of the exams is less than the cost of treatment in the absence of exams which might catch the cancer early. In the same way, we pay for marriage benefits to heterosexual couples because the costs of dealing with the children they will statistically produce outside of a legally binding contract otherwise is worse than the cost of creating that status and contract and providing benefits to sweeten the pot.

But in the same way that failing to fund prostate exams for women doesn't infringe on the right of a woman to go get one on her own dime (for whatever bizarre reason), failing to subsidize gay marriages doesn't prevent gay couples from forming into the same sort of legally binding relationships if they wish. The state just has no vested interest in encouraging them to do so. We don't care one way or another, so it's up to them to do whatever they want.


We do care if heterosexual couples get married. And that's why we go through the trouble of creating all of this.


I've given this explanation before. It's a lot more than just "gay couples can't have children". I've also explained clearly *why* that's a relevant distinction to make.

Can you give me a reason why we should pay gay couples to marry? What possible state interest is there in doing so? Remember. I'm not asking why a gay couple might want the state to pay them to marry. I'm asking why the state would want or need to do it. That's also something no one ever seems to be able to explain. Of course, I fully expect that question will be ignored and instead responded to with a chorus of "But they have a right to marry!!!".

See now, add another to your multitude of maladies: poor reading comprehension.

I never said everyone else was stupid and wrong, I inferred that you, alone, are stupid and wrong, because you fUcking are. In fact, I compared you to a monkey, and suggested normal people would pay to watch you wallow in ****. It's the opposite of me saying everyone is stupid and wrong. It's me saying everyone is better than Alma, because he's stupid and wrong.

And no, I didn't realize "Allazkhazam had a repetition in the ffxi world of being full of idiots." Hahahahahahahaha.

Hah. Funny... A real reason? One which is equivalent to the one I listed for heterosexual couples? Cause, that reason can equally apply to both groups, right? But only heterosexual couples produce the additional issue of children and the massive social and economic effects over time that result.

Not really, no.

Don't forget to answer my questions.. You're supposed to explain to me how I know ZERO about my history. OR do you admit of just talking trash because you're wrong.

I only contradicted the statement that SSM was banned because the Church made it so. The Church and the government are not working hand and hand. People banned it because of their own reasons.

I'm not denying or affirming the sources of their beliefs on why they banned SSM. It would not surprise me if they were because of religious beliefs, but the source of their beliefs don't automatically take away their merit if the argument is presented well, i.e. not "God say so". Most personal beliefs are rooted from traditions, myths, religions, personal experiences, personal morals and values, etc., i.e. nothing concrete that applies to everyone.

Any person can claim many of our laws are because of previous religious influences, but it doesn't take away the merit of the law.

Stop blaming religion. People had their beliefs and made a decision to ban SSM, pretty much like today... So, just make an argument on why marriage should be extended to SSM using an argument that is explicit to SSM, unless that is you want more involved.

The arguments I engage consists of people who have never met each other. This is verified during conversations. These are responses to Video blogs discussing controversial topics. Why would people who know each other go on facebook to argue each other?


No matter how fun it is to call people "idiots" and other insults, they don't justify anything.

Besides, the level of maturity in the debate doesn't change the fact that they understand my arguments.



Before I go any further, I was focusing on the fact that you automatically assumed that the people that I argued with were less intelligent than Allakahazam posters.

Let me break this down for you... take notes and follow along, tell me if you get lost.



Ok, if I'm so stupid AND at the bottom of the intelligence in allakhazam, but am around the median in ALL of my other social interactions, what level does that put the people I interact with? Answer: That puts half of them stupider than me, which according to you is well below human and the other half close to or borderline monkey.

Now here's the kicker, you know NOTHING about these people. You didn't even hear or see a single word. You just made that assumption purely because I had a civil argument. That means anyone is fair game.



Wow, have you even visited other ffxi sites? All you see is "lolalla". Even posters come on this forum and say that.



Yea, good thing I said in the "ffxi-world"

See that was kinda the point of me saying the "Before I go any further..." comment.


It was me actually telling you what my point was before I made those statements in an attempt to reduce any confusion. I thought you wouldn't catch the exaggeration without it, but I didn't think you wouldn't still catch the exaggeration even with the preface.

For you to think that I thought that you thought that everyone outside of Allakhazam is stupid, is silly of you. What my following comment showed was that anyone outside of Allakhazam *can* fall in that category of stupid based off his logic. This was simply because there were no discriminating factors other than being in my social interaction, which theoretically can be anyone.

Now I'm off to sleep...

I can't believe that people in the FFXI world don't like us. /wrist

No I haven't visited other FFXI sites, I have a functional ***** you fUcking ape.

And you think I have any issue with people ridiculing Allkhazoo? This place ridicules itself by employing Usagichan, for Christ's sake. This site basically ***** in its own mouth by not making me guru.

Anyway, I believe you. I'm sure Alla does have a really bad repetition around the FFXI world. I haven't, as you claim, ever seen anyone come here and claim as much because typically people don't come in here and write like primates. And speaking of, I'm curious: Can you type with your little monkey feet?

I don't think you care as I don't care either or I wouldn't be here. From my experiences, people who insulted alla on it's own forum are not frequent posters. Usually around updates, patches and expansions there will be some poster giving their 2 cents while at the same time ridiculing alla. It usually ends with the fact that the poster also has an alla account and is currently posting here as well. Then that person usually shuts up and goes back where s/he came from.

Not necessarily, But there needs to be some other rational in place or it does. That's the whole idea behind reexamining old laws. You look at the reasons they are in place, and then see if they still apply. If there is no reason for a law, it shouldn't exist, which is reason enough to get rid of it. You don't want to defend SSM, but if you want to have a law there, there has to be a rational, and there currently isn't one. You can insist that I'm arguing wrong till you're blue in the face, but thankfully you don't set the standards for lawmaking and the courts. You also still haven't made any arguments against SSM. I'm curious, so I read that third page, but it was just you arguing about nothing. I'm also surprised that as a right leaning person you would prefer more restriction as the default state rather then less.

Not really. Again the issue never came up. No one would even have thought of SSM at that point, so there was never a discussion around whether it should be allowed or not. People believed being gay was wrong, and that was it. You keep trying to insist that people thought about SSM and then decided to bad it, that simply never happened. That's why I criticized your understanding of history, you're making up stuff that isn't real.

Edited, Aug 14th 2010 11:44am by Xsarus