This is the best speech on gay marriage [Archive] - Page 2

Blake

12-09-2009, 02:17 AM

THere is nothing absolute with that post. It stands alone. I stand by it. If I do anything for internet cred, I would hope my family to take me out of my misery. Living my life in the hopes that you believe me is not a goal. Reading some of your nonsensical crap makes me feel that you need to focus more inwardly. Take your own advice.

my advice is to source your statement and I do take my own advice as often as possible.

you saying

Also the studies that a large percent of molested children growing up and choosing to have homosexual relationships...

is implying that there are studies that close out the theory you have that a large percent of molested children grow up and choose to have homosexual relationships.

I'm simply asking for your source.

If you are wasting time on a message board posting crap off as the truth, the maybe you should take your own advice and have your family take you out of your misery.

Blake

12-09-2009, 02:25 AM

:lol care to explain.

Therefore without married couples procreating I cannot understand how offspring come about. Without new population in a society it would be fair to assume that the society will not advance.

just trying to figure out how someone in this day and age doesn't understand the process of artificial insemination.

Supergirl

12-09-2009, 09:36 AM

I would never persecute, harm, or discriminate against homosexuals. Never.

I won't support anything that does that.

Just because I disapprove of them and think they are confused, perverted human beings, doesn't mean I don't care for them as human beings and would see them harm. I would help them, and if I saw a homosexual being hurt, I would be on the homosexual's side.

But my views don't change. and I don't want marriage re-defined and muddied up with homosexuals.

Give them their own institution. Gay couples are a new and strange thing to be recognized now to the USA, so accordingly, give them a new union name, with all of the same rights.

I'd be happy with that, the end.

If they aren't happy, too fucking bad. My happiness matters too. and they should only be worried about being with their couple and afforded all of the financial/legal incentives.

If they are worried about what I think of them, then this isn't about marriage now is it. This is a trojan horse for acceptance, which will never happen.

The most virulent anti-gay sentiments usually come from self-loathing homos...have you looked in the mirror lately? I'm just saying.

The law has nothing to do with whether you're "happy" or "accepted" or whether I am "happy" or "accepted." The law in this country is set up to protect the rights of the minority. And as long as we have 1200 or so rights granted by the federal government to couples based on the gender on their driver's licenses, then those rights cannot be denied to other couples based on their genders. To do so is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

You just don't get it. You are so wrapped up in your own fear that you can't see what's right and what's wrong.

ElNono

12-09-2009, 10:08 AM

You mean heterosexual couples that cannot procreate are somehow unhealthy marriages? You don't think that the people in those unions cannot help advance society?

Homosexual lifestyle is a health hazard, discouraged by the medical profession.

They have the highest rates of STD's, and internal injuries, and all sorts of other problems.

They create an disgusting union that is not a traditional family. Man, woman, and child. Not man man, or woman woman.

I would say you are the ignorant one.

http://galatiansc4v16.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/strawman2.jpeg

ElNono

12-09-2009, 10:10 AM

There it is.

Don't dodge the questions, bigot.
Are you going to answer or go back to your soapbox?

ElNono

12-09-2009, 10:14 AM

I would never persecute, harm, or discriminate against homosexuals. Never.

I won't support anything that does that.

http://xspblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/bfo-rlmente.jpg

ElNono

12-09-2009, 10:16 AM

You are wrong and you are young.

LOL @ pulling the young card. I'm probably older than you, but what does it matter?

BacktoBasics

12-09-2009, 10:21 AM

This thread is full of disgusting ignorant bigots.

rjv

12-09-2009, 11:24 AM

I am sorry. I assumed that people who were in homosexual marriages were not having sexual intercourse with people of the opposite sex. Therefore without married couples procreating I cannot understand how offspring come about. Without new population in a society it would be fair to assume that the society will not advance.

okay so let us assume that every "couple" has a fertile relationship on top of all the births we already have out of wedlock. so there are no gay couples at all. how much exponentially greater would the population of this already overpopulated planet be?

do you really think the human species is in danger of being short of conceptions?

have you ever considered that nature finds a way to balance itself?

rjv

12-09-2009, 11:42 AM

What argument do I need. The fact is our society has advanced from Judeo-Christian values. You on the other hand are trying to remove all these values, even the basic family structure ones. Without any evidence that this has ever worked in the history of this world, you are assuming that it will. Make as much variables as you want to blame for the decaying of our society. It could all be traced to the breakdown of our beliefs in what is acceptable and what is a family.
Do you have any empirical data?

you said marriage. now you are extending this argument to "family". and what values am i trying to endorse the removal of? all i have ever been getting at is one simple question? what numbers do you have to demonstrate that the "healthy marriage" as defined by your generalizations is the one single factor that is keeping this society from decay.

you never mentioned the "family unit" before. you specifically stated "healthy marriages".

and no one here is talking about judeo-christian values so stick to that one simple aspect.

ElNono

12-09-2009, 11:49 AM

you said marriage. now you are extending this argument to "family". and what values am i trying to endorse the removal of? all i have ever been getting at is one simple question? what numbers do you have to demonstrate that the "healthy marriage" as defined by your generalizations is the one single factor that is keeping this society from decay.

you never mentioned the "family unit" before. you specifically stated "healthy marriages".

and no one here is talking about judeo-christian values so stick to that one simple aspect.

You don't understand... gayness is evil... god would never approve... so we must outlaw it... :rolleyes

/sarcasm

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 12:07 PM

You don't understand... gayness is evil... god would never approve... so we must outlaw it... :rolleyes

/sarcasm

Apparently God is a lot more understanding when it comes to aetheists getting married and couples getting divorced. Forming a covenant outside of a relationship with God and calling that a marriage = okay. Breaking up a marriage that God said should stand forever = okay. But when it comes to the gays, by goodness, that's the one line that must be held.

George Gervin's Afro

12-09-2009, 12:10 PM

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 12:14 PM

okay so let us assume that every "couple" has a fertile relationship on top of all the births we already have out of wedlock. so there are no gay couples at all. how much exponentially greater would the population of this already overpopulated planet be?

do you really think the human species is in danger of being short of conceptions?

have you ever considered that nature finds a way to balance itself?

The children out of wedlock are a problem too. Europe, Asia, US and Canada have huge population problems. There are not enough young people to take the jobs in the next 10-30 years. America isn't in as much of trouble because of immigration. If you have empirical data to show I am misguided idea, then I would love to see it.

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 12:15 PM

you know what God said?

Yes, I do. God said to ask you when you planned on getting around to refuting those cost estimates on the healthcare bill like you said you would.

Cue the not so witty GGA non-response, probably involving a personal insult.

George Gervin's Afro

12-09-2009, 12:16 PM

Yes, I do. God said to ask you when you planned on getting around to refuting those cost estimates on the healthcare bill like you said you would.

so you don't know what God said.

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 12:18 PM

so you don't know what God said.

Incorrect. I do know. And it would be intellectually dishonest of you to say otherwise. You're not a mindreader afterall.

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 12:18 PM

So Miami is a gay bigot, and I am a bigot for questioning the religion of homosexuality. You guys are the biggest bunch of closed minded hypocrites.

George Gervin's Afro

12-09-2009, 12:22 PM

Incorrect. I do know. And it would be intellectually dishonest of you to say otherwise. You're not a mindreader afterall.

You're right. You are the mindreader..It's nice of you to finally admit that.:toast

George Gervin's Afro

12-09-2009, 12:23 PM

So Miami is a gay bigot, and I am a bigot for questioning the religion of homosexuality. You guys are the biggest bunch of closed minded hypocrites.

You're not a bigot. You're an idiot.

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 12:23 PM

This thread is full of disgusting ignorant bigots.

You

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 12:25 PM

So Miami is a gay bigot, and I am a bigot for questioning the religion of homosexuality. You guys are the biggest bunch of closed minded hypocrites.

You're free to question the religion of homosexuality all you want. I think what most people have a problem with is that if you want to use the God's definition of marriage arguement when it comes to gays then you need to defend why that standard isn't applied equitably. Why is it only the gays who society needs to prevent from altering God's definition to their own purposes?

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 12:34 PM

George Gervin's Afro

12-09-2009, 12:35 PM

You're free to question the religion of homosexuality all you want. I think what most people have a problem with is that if you want to use the God's definition of marriage arguement when it comes to gays then you need to defend why that standard isn't applied equitably. Why is it only the gays who society needs to prevent from altering God's definition to their own purposes?

so gays want to alter God's definition of marriage? The onle people who use God's definition are the bigots trying to deny gay people from marrying.

Hey McFly most of the same sex marriage crowd just want legal benefits and could care less about God's defnitions marriage and a church wedding. Why are you so willing to deny their partners legal rights?

rjv

12-09-2009, 01:03 PM

The children out of wedlock are a problem too. Europe, Asia, US and Canada have huge population problems. There are not enough young people to take the jobs in the next 10-30 years. America isn't in as much of trouble because of immigration. If you have empirical data to show I am misguided idea, then I would love to see it.

(Aug. 12, 2009) Global population numbers are on track to reach 7 billion in 2011, just 12 years after reaching 6 billion in 1999. Virtually all of the growth is in developing countries. And the growth of the world’s youth population (ages 15 to 24) is shifting into the poorest of those countries.
The Population Reference Bureau's 2009 World Population Data Sheet and its summary report, to be released on Aug. 12, offer detailed information about country, regional, and global population patterns.
"Even with declining fertility rates in many countries, world population is still growing at a rapid rate,” said Bill Butz, PRB's president. "The increase from 6 billion to 7 billion is likely to take 12 years, as did the increase from 5 billion to 6 billion. Both events are unprecedented in world history."
The projection for population growth in developing countries assumes that fertility in those countries will fall to the same low levels as in today's developed countries, around two children per woman. That is quite an assumption. Currently, the highest fertility rate is in Niger, 7.4 children per woman. The lowest rate is in Taiwan, 1.0 children per woman.
"The great bulk of today's 1.2 billion youth—nearly 90 percent—are in developing countries," said Carl Haub, PRB senior demographer and co-author of the data sheet. Eight in 10 of those youth live in Africa and Asia. "During the next few decades, these young people will most likely continue the current trend of moving from rural areas to cities in search of education and training opportunities, gainful employment, and adequate health care." One of the major social questions of the next few decades is whether their expectations will be met.
The 2009 World Population Data Sheet provides up-to-date demographic, health, and environment data for all the countries and major regions of the world. It shows just how stark the contrasts are between rich and poor countries, as illustrated by the table with data from the United States, Canada, and Uganda.
Even though Canada and Uganda have close to the same population today, Uganda is projected to have more than double Canada's population by 2050. The cause of these enormous differences is the difference in lifetime births per woman. Ugandan women have 6.7 children on average, five more than the average for Canadian women. (30% of the canadian population is younger than the age of 24).

Other highlights from the 2009 World Population Data Sheet:
Africa's population has just passed 1 billion. The continent's population is growing by about 24 million per year, and will double by 2050.
About half the world lives in poverty. Nearly 50 percent of world population lives on less than the equivalent of US$2 per day. Hundreds of millions of people live barely above that level.
HIV prevalence now appears to be on the decline in Africa, but rates are still far higher than in other world regions. Swaziland has the world's highest rate of HIV: 26 percent of its population ages 15 to 49 is HIV positive.
The birth rate among U.S. teenagers is twice as high as the average for all developed countries. The U.S. rate is 42 births per 1,000 teenage girls (ages 15-19); the rate for all developed countries is 21 per 1,000.

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 01:21 PM

so gays want to alter God's definition of marriage? The onle people who use God's definition are the bigots trying to deny gay people from marrying.

Hey McFly most of the same sex marriage crowd just want legal benefits and could care less about God's defnitions marriage and a church wedding. Why are you so willing to deny their partners legal rights?

Hey McFly, I've got no problems with gay marriage. I've said that repeatedly. In this thread alone I've made multiple posts attacking the "God's definition" arguement that gets used against gay marriage as being fundamentally flawed. Including the very post that you responded to.

It's posts like this that make it impossible to take you seriously. You either lack the basic reading comprehension skills to recognize that we actually agree on this topic or you're just going out of your way to behave like a jackass because that's how you get your jollies. So which is it?

ElNono

12-09-2009, 01:29 PM

Apparently God is a lot more understanding when it comes to aetheists getting married and couples getting divorced. Forming a covenant outside of a relationship with God and calling that a marriage = okay. Breaking up a marriage that God said should stand forever = okay. But when it comes to the gays, by goodness, that's the one line that must be held.

This has nothing to do with God, even though bigots like SnC will try to make it all about that. This has to do with the government granting about 1200 special rights to the entity of marriage, be it secular or not, and discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to granting those rights. If they would grant the exact same rights under the civil union mantra, this would be much less of a problem, if a problem at all.
This is an issue of law, not an issue of faith.

So, in a nutshell, I agree with you...

George Gervin's Afro

12-09-2009, 01:36 PM

Hey McFly, I've got no problems with gay marriage. I've said that repeatedly. In this thread alone I've made multiple posts attacking the "God's definition" arguement that gets used against gay marriage as being fundamentally flawed. Including the very post that you responded to.

It's posts like this that make it impossible to take you seriously. You either lack the basic reading comprehension skills to recognize that we actually agree on this topic or you're just going out of your way to behave like a jackass because that's how you get your jollies. So which is it?

I rarely if ever read your posts so it's neither.

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 01:36 PM

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 01:41 PM

I rarely if ever read your posts so it's neither.

That clearly hasn't stopped you from responding to them. Perhaps you should start reading them if you plan to continue responding to them so as to prevent yourself from looking foolish.

rjv

12-09-2009, 01:44 PM

George Gervin's Afro

12-09-2009, 01:50 PM

That clearly hasn't stopped you from responding to them. Perhaps you should start reading them if you plan to continue responding to them so as to prevent yourself from looking foolish.

I may read a post but not all of them because we have established you lack intellectual integrity oand basic logical thinking skills so I don't waste my time with 90% of them.

can't forget you read minds and talk to God directly so how can I pass that up?

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 01:50 PM

This has nothing to do with God, even though bigots like SnC will try to make it all about that. This has to do with the government granting about 1200 special rights to the entity of marriage, be it secular or not, and discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to granting those rights. If they would grant the exact same rights under the civil union mantra, this would be much less of a problem, if a problem at all.
This is an issue of law, not an issue of faith.

So, in a nutshell, I agree with you...

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

I guess you want to change the definition of bigot too. Here is a definition I know fits you: ignorant. Also immature.

Now since this is now about laws. How about the laws. Why should we change the definition? Gay marriage is not the same as a regular marriage. The leadership of a society should promote marriage, which is why all the benefits come to marriage. What are the benefits for our society from gay marriage.
With that said, if they do a gay unions and they get their rights-fine. Although it should be a state decision and voted on by the population and not by their more enlightened elected officials.

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 02:17 PM

I may read a post but not all of them because we have established you lack intellectual integrity oand basic logical thinking skills so I don't waste my time with 90% of them.

Sweet. Only 10% more to go.

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 02:38 PM

(Aug. 12, 2009) Global population numbers are on track to reach 7 billion in 2011, just 12 years after reaching 6 billion in 1999. Virtually all of the growth is in developing countries. And the growth of the world’s youth population (ages 15 to 24) is shifting into the poorest of those countries.
The Population Reference Bureau's 2009 World Population Data Sheet and its summary report, to be released on Aug. 12, offer detailed information about country, regional, and global population patterns.
"Even with declining fertility rates in many countries, world population is still growing at a rapid rate,” said Bill Butz, PRB's president. "The increase from 6 billion to 7 billion is likely to take 12 years, as did the increase from 5 billion to 6 billion. Both events are unprecedented in world history."
The projection for population growth in developing countries assumes that fertility in those countries will fall to the same low levels as in today's developed countries, around two children per woman. That is quite an assumption. Currently, the highest fertility rate is in Niger, 7.4 children per woman. The lowest rate is in Taiwan, 1.0 children per woman.
"The great bulk of today's 1.2 billion youth—nearly 90 percent—are in developing countries," said Carl Haub, PRB senior demographer and co-author of the data sheet. Eight in 10 of those youth live in Africa and Asia. "During the next few decades, these young people will most likely continue the current trend of moving from rural areas to cities in search of education and training opportunities, gainful employment, and adequate health care." One of the major social questions of the next few decades is whether their expectations will be met.
The 2009 World Population Data Sheet provides up-to-date demographic, health, and environment data for all the countries and major regions of the world. It shows just how stark the contrasts are between rich and poor countries, as illustrated by the table with data from the United States, Canada, and Uganda.
Even though Canada and Uganda have close to the same population today, Uganda is projected to have more than double Canada's population by 2050. The cause of these enormous differences is the difference in lifetime births per woman. Ugandan women have 6.7 children on average, five more than the average for Canadian women. (30% of the canadian population is younger than the age of 24).

Other highlights from the 2009 World Population Data Sheet:
Africa's population has just passed 1 billion. The continent's population is growing by about 24 million per year, and will double by 2050.
About half the world lives in poverty. Nearly 50 percent of world population lives on less than the equivalent of US$2 per day. Hundreds of millions of people live barely above that level.
HIV prevalence now appears to be on the decline in Africa, but rates are still far higher than in other world regions. Swaziland has the world's highest rate of HIV: 26 percent of its population ages 15 to 49 is HIV positive.
The birth rate among U.S. teenagers is twice as high as the average for all developed countries. The U.S. rate is 42 births per 1,000 teenage girls (ages 15-19); the rate for all developed countries is 21 per 1,000.

http://www.irantour.org/china/china2025.png

http://base.china-europa-forum.net/rsc/fr/documents/document-1108.html

rjv

12-09-2009, 03:15 PM

http://www.irantour.org/china/china2025.png

http://base.china-europa-forum.net/rsc/fr/documents/document-1108.html

so? you gave me an article showing that the population control measures put into effect by china have created an extrapolation that indicates their could be some relief in the near future (2026) and then be just above a meager one billion (wow-that would make them nearly extinct) in the year 2100. and then the rest of the article talks about the aging population and the need to address medical concerns for such a demographic. it makes no mention of any threat to the younger demographic or of that group being at scarce numbers at all. it says nothing to dispute the statistic indicating that 90 percent of the nearly 2 billion youth in the world are from either asia or africa. it simply states that dependency ratios may reach more manageable numbers. a major concern for china (and thus the fertility measures)

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 03:31 PM

so? you gave me an article showing that the population control measures put into effect by china have created an extrapolation that indicates their could be some relief in the near future (2026) and then be just above a meager one billion (wow-that would make them nearly extinct) in the year 2100. and then the rest of the article talks about the aging population and the need to address medical concerns for such a demographic. it makes no mention of any threat to the younger demographic or of that group being at scarce numbers at all. it says nothing to dispute the statistic indicating that 90 percent of the nearly 2 billion youth in the world are from either asia or africa. it simply states that dependency ratios may reach more manageable numbers. a major concern for china (and thus the fertility measures)

What I said was that china, not asia, was going to have problems filling the jobs and did not have an overpopulation problem. You give me data about asia and africa. then you put america on it's own measurement, without icluding it in N America continent.

"(1) The population forecast for the first half of this century shows that the ageing population in China will grow constantly , but will gradually decline by the second half of the century. (2) By 2053 the elderly population aged 60 and over will peak at 430 million, after which the curve will gradually flatten. "
They base this only on the idea that china will immigrate, in which china has shown little evidence that they would.

ElNono

12-09-2009, 03:31 PM

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

Now since this is now about laws. How about the laws. Why should we change the definition? Gay marriage is not the same as a regular marriage. The leadership of a society should promote marriage, which is why all the benefits come to marriage. What are the benefits for our society from gay marriage.

I mean, do you read what you write?
To say that gay marriage is not the same as non-gay marriage is entirely your own prejudiced opinion. Tell me, how is gay marriage any different than regular marriage of a couple that either cannot or decide not to have offspring? Under what premise the later is acceptable and deemed to benefit our society, but the former is not?
Furthermore, state laws have actually been recently altered in order to specifically ban gay marriages. So the one altering laws and state constitutions are you, the bigot thumpers.

With that said, if they do a gay unions and they get their rights-fine. Although it should be a state decision and voted on by the population and not by their more enlightened elected officials.

It's not a matter of popular vote. It's a matter of enforcing constitutional rights. Namely, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

rjv

12-09-2009, 03:50 PM

What I said was that china, not asia, was going to have problems filling the jobs and did not have an overpopulation problem. You give me data about asia and africa. then you put america on it's own measurement, without icluding it in N America continent.

"(1) The population forecast for the first half of this century shows that the ageing population in China will grow constantly , but will gradually decline by the second half of the century. (2) By 2053 the elderly population aged 60 and over will peak at 430 million, after which the curve will gradually flatten. "
They base this only on the idea that china will immigrate, in which china has shown little evidence that they would.

so if there are going to be over 430 million people over the age of 60 in the year 2053 what age does that make them now? that means there are 430 million people at least at the age of under 16 in China. if the proportion of the elderly is at 30% in the year 2011 then that means there will be at least 30% of the total population under the age of 10 in the year 2050.

the problem with china filling jobs is due to rural issues and hiring practices.

According toZhong Naiyi, a researcher at Shanghai Institute for International Studies, what has caused the labor shortage is the fact that although farmers' income has risen in recent years, migrant workers haven't seen much growth in their income. As a result, farmers feel less inclined to leave for a city job.

In January 2004, the first year of the labor shortage, the government issued new rules to extend the land contract time for farmers in order to improve productivity. Many migrant workers then left their jobs in cities and went back to their villages. Also that year, farmers received additional subsidies from the central government because of a short supply of grains. Over the past three years, the central government has stepped up its efforts to help farmers by lowering taxes and improving their incomes. All those measures have helped narrow the income gap between farmers and migrant workers. As a result, says Zhong, "it pays better to stay with" farming.
About 150 million farmers in China are currently idle. As productivity continues to improve -- even with slower growth in the farmer population -- that number is expected to stay between 120 million and 180 million over the next 15 years. In theory, those "unemployed" farmers would have to go to cities for jobs.

Yu Nanping, a researcher at East China Normal University, notes that it is because of the population structure -- not the shortage of workers -- that Chinese enterprises are having a hard time filling positions. In general, the supply of laborers still exceeds the demand due to the 150 million unemployed farmers. Part of this is caused by the fact that labor-intensive enterprises prefer to hire younger workers.

For example, says Yu, "Zhejiang Province has a very advanced textile industry and therefore is in need of many female workers between the ages of 18 and 25. The city of Shaoxing, for instance, has experienced a labor shortage this year. The preference for younger workers" only adds to the problem. In addition, thanks to the growing economy and technological advances, there is a growing demand from enterprises for technical expertise. This year, 30% to 40% of the 400,000 unfilled jobs in Shenzhen are technical positions. That figure is 20% to 30% in Guangzhou. "Most of China's migrant workers today are involved in jobs that require no technical skills, and so [these workers] are easily replaceable," Yu adds. "They must try to gain knowledge and technical expertise."

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/printer_friendly.cfm?articleid=1473

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 04:50 PM

my advice is to source your statement and I do take my own advice as often as possible.

you saying

is implying that there are studies that close out the theory you have that a large percent of molested children grow up and choose to have homosexual relationships.

I'm simply asking for your source.

If you are wasting time on a message board posting crap off as the truth, the maybe you should take your own advice and have your family take you out of your misery.
I'll keep looking for the source.

baseline bum

12-09-2009, 04:50 PM

If they would grant the exact same rights under the civil union mantra, this would be much less of a problem, if a problem at all.

I completely disagree with this statement. If you can refer to the two institutions separately, then you can change each independently and therefore destroy the initial equality easily. With how amendments are always added at the last second by douchebag senators and representatives who hold votes hostage if they don't get their cut, the definitions would almost certainly deviate and do it quickly.

AussieFanKurt

12-09-2009, 05:01 PM

Seriously, you've got issues. Is someone who thinks of people who don't agree with re-defining marriage as "bigots" seriously going to lecture me when it's patently obvious he's never been able to respect opinions? You sit in judgment and make crass simplifications that simply aren't true, because you don't know what you're talking about.

bigotry - intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations
gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm (http://www.google.com.au/url?ei=oR0gS9TQBIugkQWXtNjhCg&sig2=Hz_jC_4cqsdtAelHGvmYYg&q=http://gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm&ei=oR0gS9TQBIugkQWXtNjhCg&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CBUQpAMoBQ&usg=AFQjCNFTmpETnpCLctrafH1onKdWAggsNw)

you're a bigot. you have not only an intolerance but also a hate towards people of a different creed. in this case homosexuals

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 05:17 PM

Blake

12-09-2009, 06:02 PM

I rarely if ever read your posts so it's neither.

that's a shame. You'd probably learn something from CG.

AussieFanKurt

12-09-2009, 06:45 PM

Your an asshole. I have never stated any hate for any group. I'm not intolerant about anyone's way of life. I used merriam webster. YOu use a mason dictionary. Seriously???

I quoted MiamiHeat you fuckhead

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 06:52 PM

I quoted MiamiHeat you fuckhead

touche
I don't think his beliefs he has stated on this op would show any kind of bigotry.

AussieFanKurt

12-09-2009, 06:56 PM

touche
I don't think his beliefs he has stated on this op would show any kind of bigotry.

except he thinks that homosexuals (a different creed to himself) are wrong, disgusting, perverted beings.

MiamiHeat

12-09-2009, 07:06 PM

bigotry - intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations
gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm (http://www.google.com.au/url?ei=oR0gS9TQBIugkQWXtNjhCg&sig2=Hz_jC_4cqsdtAelHGvmYYg&q=http://gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm&ei=oR0gS9TQBIugkQWXtNjhCg&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CBUQpAMoBQ&usg=AFQjCNFTmpETnpCLctrafH1onKdWAggsNw)

you're a bigot. you have not only an intolerance but also a hate towards people of a different creed. in this case homosexuals

I guess the entire western world, all democratic nations, are bigots too

We accuse and shame all communist nations.

I guess if you stand for ANY opinion, ANY belief, someone can come and claim you a bigot because by consequence, if you have an opinion and take a stand on a belief, someone will disagree with you. By virtue of your refusal to waver on your beliefs, you are now 'intolerant of other people's beliefs' and can be labeled a bigot

So please, spare me your childish name calling.

It matters not.

MiamiHeat

12-09-2009, 07:09 PM

except he thinks that homosexuals (a different creed to himself) are wrong, disgusting, perverted beings.
I guess I'm a bigot for denouncing communism.

They have a different creed than I do, and I think communism is a disgusting abuse of power, that leads to the exploitation of the people, and a totalitarian form of government.

Boy, I am sure glad we are all bigots for taking a stand on that issue.

ElNono

12-09-2009, 07:16 PM

I completely disagree with this statement. If you can refer to the two institutions separately, then you can change each independently and therefore destroy the initial equality easily. With how amendments are always added at the last second by douchebag senators and representatives who hold votes hostage if they don't get their cut, the definitions would almost certainly deviate and do it quickly.

Well, my point was that the government would stop handling 'marriages' entirely. Everything would move into the civil union umbrella, including all the rights granted under marriage today. Then if you want to go to church and do that whole other parade that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and call that marriage, then so be it.

AussieFanKurt

12-09-2009, 07:17 PM

ElNono

12-09-2009, 07:20 PM

I guess I'm a bigot for denouncing communism.

They have a different creed than I do, and I think communism is a disgusting abuse of power, that leads to the exploitation of the people, and a totalitarian form of government.

Boy, I am sure glad we are all bigots for taking a stand on that issue.

We're not suppressing legal rights to communists, so your analogy is full of fail. If you said that you advocate removing 1st amendment rights to a communist, THEN you would be being a bigot.

MiamiHeat

12-09-2009, 07:31 PM

We're not suppressing legal rights to communists, so your analogy is full of fail. If you said that you advocate removing 1st amendment rights to a communist, THEN you would be being a bigot.

The Fail in you is strong.
Your stipulations have no place here

TO QUOTE AUSSIE

bigotry - intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations
gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm

you're a bigot. you have not only an intolerance but also a hate towards people of a different creed. in this case homosexuals

MiamiHeat

12-09-2009, 07:34 PM

I think the fact that you consider a normal, law abiding, tax paying group disgusting and perverted makes me you think in fact, you are the simpleton. You must not have met many because every one I've talked to/met are just normal people. Wow they have sex differently. Who cares

I don't think I ever said they don't know how to function in society, or aren't nice people.

What I said was that they are confused and disgusting for their sexual perversions.

MiamiHeat

12-09-2009, 07:36 PM

Supergirl

12-09-2009, 09:50 PM

You're free to question the religion of homosexuality all you want. I think what most people have a problem with is that if you want to use the God's definition of marriage arguement when it comes to gays then you need to defend why that standard isn't applied equitably. Why is it only the gays who society needs to prevent from altering God's definition to their own purposes?

Since when is homosexuality a religion? LOL. Since I am bisexual, does that make me interfaith? Also, what, precisely are the tenets or dogma in the religion of homosexuality? This should be good.

Supergirl

12-09-2009, 09:52 PM

Can anyone please give me stimulating or intelligent reasoning in support of homosexuality?

All I see are politically correct parrots, who regurgitate the same exact phrases I hear from other simpletons.

Homesexuality and bisexuality are 20th century words to define sexual behavior which has existed in every culture throughout history and in every part of world as well as in many parts of the animal kingdom.

Marriage, on the other hand, is a legal contract and has been continually redefined throughout history. It used to be an economic exchange in which one man gave another man a woman and some money or goods. Shall we return to this definition of marriage?

coyotes_geek

12-09-2009, 10:33 PM

Since when is homosexuality a religion? LOL. Since I am bisexual, does that make me interfaith? Also, what, precisely are the tenets or dogma in the religion of homosexuality? This should be good.

Gotta ask snc. That was his phrase. I just used it in my response to his post.

spursncowboys

12-09-2009, 10:41 PM

Since when is homosexuality a religion? LOL. Since I am bisexual, does that make me interfaith? Also, what, precisely are the tenets or dogma in the religion of homosexuality? This should be good.

It would probably be better if you read my post before you tried to take it out of context.

ElNono

12-09-2009, 11:46 PM

Can anyone please give me stimulating or intelligent reasoning in support of homosexuality?

Sure. It makes those people happy. Just like heterosexuals being with a partner of the opposite sex. Now that I answered that, please answer me this:

How does homosexuals being married and enjoying each other's company in the privacy of their homes affects your life at all?

jacobdrj

12-10-2009, 12:04 AM

Sure. It makes those people happy. Just like heterosexuals being with a partner of the opposite sex. Now that I answered that, please answer me this:

How does homosexuals being married and enjoying each other's company in the privacy of their homes affects your life at all?

Good point. And I know I am beating a dead horse, but why does government sanctioning that marriage make them any more happy then them declaring that marriage themselves between each other?

I know, I know, insurance...

Supergirl

12-10-2009, 12:43 AM

Good point. And I know I am beating a dead horse, but why does government sanctioning that marriage make them any more happy then them declaring that marriage themselves between each other?

I know, I know, insurance...

Because, for the umpteenth time, there are 1200+ rights that come with that lil ole marriage certificate, which are denied to certain people based on the gender designation of their partner.

ElNono

12-10-2009, 12:58 AM

Good point. And I know I am beating a dead horse, but why does government sanctioning that marriage make them any more happy then them declaring that marriage themselves between each other?
I know, I know, insurance...

Because, for the umpteenth time, there are 1200+ rights that come with that lil ole marriage certificate, which are denied to certain people based on the gender designation of their partner.

jacobdrj

12-10-2009, 01:02 AM

Because, for the umpteenth time, there are 1200+ rights that come with that lil ole marriage certificate, which are denied to certain people based on the gender designation of their partner.

Can you be more specific? Beyond some insurance stuff, I actually am not aware of any benefits, other than some protections granted in case of separation to each spouse and any wards they may have.

Blake

12-10-2009, 01:12 AM

Can anyone please give me stimulating or intelligent reasoning in support of homosexuality?

All I see are politically correct parrots, who regurgitate the same exact phrases I hear from other simpletons.

Your main beef has been "the medical field frowns on anal sex."

Just curious, what's your stance with lesbians using dildos?

ElNono

12-10-2009, 01:14 AM

Can you be more specific? Beyond some insurance stuff, I actually am not aware of any benefits, other than some protections granted in case of separation to each spouse and any wards they may have.

Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States)

jacobdrj

12-10-2009, 01:17 AM

ElNono

12-10-2009, 01:21 AM

Many of those things don't seem like benefits at all, and the ones that do seem that they probably shouldn't be related to marriage in the 1st place.

Again, my point is state sponsored marriage beyond a general contract seems silly to me.

It might seem silly to you, but it's actually very real. And wether those benefits should be tied to marriage or not is really irrelevant. Right now, they are, and that's all that matters.

CuckingFunt

12-10-2009, 01:21 AM

Can you be more specific? Beyond some insurance stuff, I actually am not aware of any benefits, other than some protections granted in case of separation to each spouse and any wards they may have.http://www.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm
Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners

Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are:

The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death.
Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys to draw up legal documents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated; how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and what they want to happen to their property when they die. However, these are not a substitute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law.

Many of those things don't seem like benefits at all, and the ones that do seem that they probably shouldn't be related to marriage in the 1st place.

Doesn't matter. Fact is those protections DO exist, and as long as they're in place for a portion of the population they should be in place for all of the population.

CuckingFunt

12-10-2009, 01:31 AM

Your main beef has been "the medical field frowns on anal sex."

Just curious, what's your stance with lesbians using dildos?

Or lesbians who don't use dildos?

Or gay men who don't have anal sex?

Or straight couples who do have anal sex?

Or same-gender couples who are asexual?

Or straight couples who are asexual?

Or straight couples who have agreed upon same-gender sexual relationships with others?

Or same-gender couples who have agreed upon sexual relationships with members of a different gender?

Or straight couples who have a "normal" heterosexual sex life but in which the male partner spends 25% (or more) of the time living as a woman?

Or a couple made up of two biological females, one of whom is in the process of transitioning to a male gender?

...

As I've mentioned to you before in similar arguments, your insistence that this issue is only about men having anal sex with each other speaks volumes about your specific fears and prejudices.

jacobdrj

12-10-2009, 01:39 AM

http://www.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm

Doesn't matter. Fact is those protections DO exist, and as long as they're in place for a portion of the population they should be in place for all of the population.

So instead of fixing the problem, we should put a band-aid on it?

That list just confirms to me more that this is a non-issue, or one that is over politicized.

Again, if it is just to 'make them happy' than state acknowledgement should not be an issue.

If it is for protections, those protections should be transferable REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP to another person, for example, a Last Will and Testament conferring inheritance rights, and a list of people you want your pension to go to when you die on your pension application. Marriage seems like it was just a convenient title given to people to latch these things onto so people didn't have to do the work themselves to secure these rights.

jacobdrj

12-10-2009, 01:42 AM

It might seem silly to you, but it's actually very real. And wether those benefits should be tied to marriage or not is really irrelevant. Right now, they are, and that's all that matters.

Then make a call to fix the problem instead of calling for the creation of more legislation that is still incomplete.

jacobdrj

12-10-2009, 01:51 AM

Let me submit a similar example: Texting while driving. IIRC, reckless driving is an offense in itself, regardless of if you are under the influence of a drug. Yet, we are looking to specifically legislate texting out of driving. This is unnecessary legislation. It is wasting taxpayer dollars for trying to fix something that isn't broken. The only problem is that, for some reason, cops don't pull people over for texting right now. It is known that it is reckless to drive while texting, and therefore is already an offense.

Another example: Hate crimes. It is illegal to lynch someone. Why is it any more illegal if your motives are different?

It seems like there are means of solving most of the 'benefits' already, and again, some of those things, like joint tax filing, seem trivial. Even single parents get tax benefits for wards. Perhaps benefits should be conferred to any group of people deciding to jointly take care of wards. This is what we should be calling for as a society, not singling out a single group of people, who seem more interested in labeling themselves rather than solving a larger issue.

ElNono

12-10-2009, 02:01 AM

Then make a call to fix the problem instead of calling for the creation of more legislation that is still incomplete.

That's what they're doing. Both through the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act) that would basically repeal DOMA, and also through lawsuits such as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (http://www.glad.org/doma).

CuckingFunt

12-10-2009, 02:04 AM

So instead of fixing the problem, we should put a band-aid on it?

That list just confirms to me more that this is a non-issue, or one that is over politicized.

Again, if it is just to 'make them happy' than state acknowledgement should not be an issue.

If it is for protections, those protections should be transferable REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP to another person, for example, a Last Will and Testament conferring inheritance rights, and a list of people you want your pension to go to when you die on your pension application. Marriage seems like it was just a convenient title given to people to latch these things onto so people didn't have to do the work themselves to secure these rights.

The most pressing problem, as I see it, is that a sizable group of people is being denied the same access to certain rights and protections that the rest of the population is able to obtain without even really trying. If the issue is inequality, I'm not really sure how equality is a band-aid fix.

Nor am I sure how pointed, overt discrimination against a portion of the population qualifies as a non-issue.

If you want to argue the specific rights and protections that are automatically granted with a government recognized marriage contract, have at it. Based on previous posts, I'll likely agree with a number of your arguments. But, really, that's a different fight for a different day.

AussieFanKurt

12-10-2009, 05:57 AM

People making some very true and valid points here!

mogrovejo

12-10-2009, 04:49 PM

mogrovejo

12-10-2009, 04:50 PM

mogrovejo's right.

Fully agree.

mogrovejo

12-10-2009, 05:00 PM

there really is no point in the attempt to link any philosophical origin to the contract of marriage as in today's times, the financial applications of matrimony far outweigh any ideological ones.

Huh, what? Since when was that about the philosophical origin to the contract of marriage, whatever that means? Marriage, as an institution, contract or whatever, is a subject to philosophy. I'm not even sure what that ideological/financial dichotomy is supposed to mean, but if your suggestion is that the financial aspect of marriage is now more important than in the past I suspect you'd be in trouble to prove that. Heck, Locke disserted about marriage in the scope of his theory of property.

In any case, I was just pointing out that jacob was, consciously or not, presenting marriage as an Hegelian concept (I think in order to refute it). That doesn't change whatsoever - if marriage is seen as more than a contract and therefore deserving of special and unique state protection that's Hegelian. Have you ever read what those guys wrote about marriage?

mogrovejo

12-10-2009, 05:02 PM

Nor am I sure how pointed, overt discrimination against a portion of the population qualifies as a non-issue.

What you need to prove is that 1) gay marriage solves that (after proving 2) that positive discrimination is always wrong) and that 3) it's the only or better way of solving that.

From my understanding you'd go from situation A - those who are willing to marry a person of the opposed sex and accomplish that are positively discriminate to situation B - those who are willing to marry a person of the opposed sex or the same sex and accomplish that are positively discriminate.

Blake

12-10-2009, 05:11 PM

What you need to prove is that 1) gay marriage solves that (after proving 2) that positive discrimination is always wrong) and that 3) it's the only or better way of solving that.

From my understanding you'd go from situation A - those who are willing to marry a person of the opposed sex and accomplish that are positively discriminate to situation B - those who are willing to marry a person of the opposed sex or the same sex and accomplish that are positively discriminate.

how is this positive discrimination?

mogrovejo

12-10-2009, 06:02 PM

What do you mean by "this", Blake?

admiralsnackbar

12-10-2009, 07:51 PM

I have no idea. I was replying to your statements and refuting them. If you disagree with my refutation, feel free to explain why.

Why are you calling me Ron Paul? I'm not Ron Paul, thank God.

Apologies -- there was no need to call you Ron Paul, your reply just seemed to sound Libertarian by virtue of diminishing the role of law.

My beef was this: your reply was a historical explanation that said contracts haven't always been maintained or upheld by governments. Fair enough -- I used the infinitive, which you probably took to suggest an absolute statement which, instead, was a description of the present. But the question I was responding to asked who is in the role of protecting contracts. Now. Short of extra-legal entities like the Mafia (who only protect a very limited number and type of contracts anyway), the answer has to be government. Why? Because the only force that can enforce the process of justice legally is, unsurprisingly, the same entity that administrates the law under whose terms contracts are entered into.

I understand that contracts can happen in spiritual dimensions as they do in the church, but the church does not have any more authority than it's faithful grant it. If a church tries to negotiate child-visitation terms for an estranged couple, and one of the parents doesn't comply with the agreement, the church does not have the authority to take the child away, only the govt does. Same goes for handshake agreements: they may constitute a contract, but they provide no recourse for justice in and of themselves.

Blake

12-10-2009, 10:59 PM

What do you mean by "this", Blake?

How do you figure the people in your situation A are automaticall in the positive discrimination light to people in situation B...

but forget that.....

I'd rather know why you are telling CF to prove that positive is always wrong

Jacob1983

12-11-2009, 12:45 AM

admiralsnackbar

12-11-2009, 01:37 AM

Why don't people just give up on gay marriage? Besides, Obama isn't going budge on the issue. He has stated publicly that he does not support gay marriage. He only supports civil unions and benefits. Besides, when you think about it, if gay people can get married then what's next? What happens when gay people finally get everything they want? Won't their movement/agenda basically have no purpose anymore since they accomplished their goal and got their way? When gay people get everything that they want, they will just be like straight people and not have a cause anymore. However, aren't gay people suppose to be special and unique because of their gayness. If gay people are like straight people because they have the right to get married then doesn't that take away their uniqueness?

Did it occur to you that the whole crux of the issue is that gay couples just want to be legally included by their host culture, whether or not that leaves them "without a cause?" And Obama being in favor of civil unions is not at odds with what homosexuals want, given they seem to only want to be eligible for the protections of marriage on a civil union level. They just don't want their unions to be distinguished from heterosexual civil unions, because that, in itself will be a further discrimination. But it doesn't much matter what Obama thinks since this is almost certainly a states' rights issue, not a federal one.

Hate crimes are a joke if you ask me. I will explain. During the presidential election, there was a hanging effigy of America's sweetheart Sarah Palin, it wasn't not considered a hate crime because you supposedly can't hate someone because of their gender. However, if it had been Obama then it would have been a hate crime because you can hate someone because of their race. When you think about it, prosecutors could use the "hate crime" approach to any crime. They could be like "well the defendant clearly hated the victim because of the person was ________ so that makes the crime even worse". Hate crimes also trivialize the victim. Hating someone doesn't make the crime more or less illegal. If it's against the law, then it's a crime. It doesn't matter if hate was involved.

They did hang effigies of Obama during the election. No hate crimes laws were invoked. You also fail to acknowledge that women would be protected by hate-speech laws. Or any individual who is attacked on the basis of belonging to a group, for that matter.

I agree with you that the prospect of hate speech laws very possibly challenges first amendment protections, but I also believe that we have to find a way to create dis-incentives for people who organize violence against others. I'd rather err on the side of free speech than otherwise, but I'd support limited and heavily-stipulated limits on certain kinds of speech that lead to violence.

Winehole23

12-11-2009, 01:46 AM

I also believe that we have to find a way to create dis-incentives for people who organize violence against othersIf violence itself is punishable as a crime, why is there any need to punish the intent as a separate crime? It seems like a redundancy to me. It would seem you are arguing the deserts of crime are not disincentive enough.

Why not?

Winehole23

12-11-2009, 01:47 AM

It is already a crime to incite others to riot, or otherwise to threaten public order.

Winehole23

12-11-2009, 01:49 AM

Also, conspiracy laws exist where crimes are not yet manifest, or for some reason cannot be prosecuted. Why wouldn't that cover it?

admiralsnackbar

12-11-2009, 02:48 AM

All your points are well-taken, Wino. So much so that I'd say we're in complete agreement but for one type of case, which I fear cannot be legislated without compromising the 1st amendment anyway. The case I'm thinking of could be termed a "meta-fatwa," wherein a leader of a large following obliquely targets an individual on the basis of whatever group the individual belongs to. They provide information like addresses and schedules of their target, and they passionately demonize their target to their followers, but they never explicitly conspire to kill or harm their target. Instead they conspire to create conspiracy, if that isn't too wonky a formulation. And, more often than not, they get away with it.

When I imagine what an agency that made determinations on this sort of case would be like, however, I shudder at the amount of interpretive leeway they would have to be empowered to wield. So I'm 95% content accepting the lumps of the first amendment as it is currently enforced, but that %5... she does nag at me.

Winehole23

12-11-2009, 02:57 AM

The case I'm thinking of could be termed a "meta-fatwa," wherein a leader of a large following obliquely targets an individual on the basis of whatever group the individual belongs to.They provide information like addresses and schedules of their target, and they passionately demonize their target to their followers, but they never explicitly conspire to kill or harm their target. Instead they conspire to create conspiracy, if that isn't too wonky a formulation. And, more often than not, they get away with it.I can see why this bothers you. Hell, it bothers me too. But I basically think, as you suggested yourself at the end of your post, that the solution might well end up being worse than the disease. Any power left in the hands of fallible man will eventually be abused.

Therefore it were apparently more prudent and wise to rest content with prosecuting, for example, the man who shoots the abortionist and not the preacher who put the idea in his head, even though the the preacher may be the deadlier of the two in the long run.

Winehole23

12-11-2009, 03:11 AM

mogrovejo's right.

Fully agree. Don't sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back.

Winehole23

12-11-2009, 03:40 AM

I always find it highly hypocritical when people just jump into basically lynch mob and bash a celebrity for saying something that is either questionable and/or offensive. I think it's hypocritical because those people are judging these celebs yet I bet these same people have said the same things.Sure. People are free to be hypocritical. Does that prove something?

byrontx

12-11-2009, 09:23 AM

I love how you thumpers think that marriage is your union. You somehow own it and god created it for you. Its not your union. You never created it. It was never yours. Marriage or unions date back much further than your creation of Christ and any notion of his Father God. It was never yours to manipulate in the first place. Like everything else in this society your fantasy tale religion has taken something from someone or something else and twisted it to fit in your own little disgusting vision of perfection.

Spot on. Most religious people don't know jack about the origin of their religion. Religious dogma was instilled in them before they reached an age of critical thinking and it is stuck there.

Blake

12-11-2009, 12:11 PM

mogrovejo

12-11-2009, 06:19 PM

How do you figure the people in your situation A are automaticall in the positive discrimination light to people in situation B...

I don't understand what you mean. What I'm saying is that in situation A there's a group who is discriminated towards another part of the population and in situation B exactly the same happens.

I'd rather know why you are telling CF to prove that positive is always wrong

Because of the way he phrased the argument - in terms of the estatization of gay marriage solving a discrimination towards part of the population (and the discrimination here is positive, because in the status quo situation no privileges are granted). If discrimination is wrong, then there are the following up questions. Of course, one can always argue that positive discrimination in favour of certain groups is acceptable - but in that case the debate shouldn't be framed in terms of "it's unacceptable that a part of the population is discriminated".

Apologies -- there was no need to call you Ron Paul, your reply just seemed to sound Libertarian by virtue of diminishing the role of law.

Ah, okay. I'm not a Libertarian and if I could be seen as one then Ron Paul wouldn't. I have no problem with the role of law, quite the contrary; I'd very much like to see the role of legislation reduced (http://www.amazon.com/Law-Legislation-Liberty-Rules-Order/dp/0226320863).

My beef was this: your reply was a historical explanation that said contracts haven't always been maintained or upheld by governments. Fair enough -- I used the infinitive, which you probably took to suggest an absolute statement which, instead, was a description of the present. But the question I was responding to asked who is in the role of protecting contracts. Now. Short of extra-legal entities like the Mafia (who only protect a very limited number and type of contracts anyway), the answer has to be government. Why? Because the only force that can enforce the process of justice legally is, unsurprisingly, the same entity that administrates the law under whose terms contracts are entered into.

I understand that contracts can happen in spiritual dimensions as they do in the church, but the church does not have any more authority than it's faithful grant it. If a church tries to negotiate child-visitation terms for an estranged couple, and one of the parents doesn't comply with the agreement, the church does not have the authority to take the child away, only the govt does. Same goes for handshake agreements: they may constitute a contract, but they provide no recourse for justice in and of themselves.

A huge majority of the contracts signed between parties are private law (a somehow misleading expression in Anglo-Saxonic countries, I think) - they only involve individuals, not the state. There are plenty of private (not state-sanctioned) jurisdictions - in international business for example. The parts just agree with the jurisdiction of a forum. See the arbitrary courts, for example. Are people less prone to comply with those kind of contracts or are contractual disputes more frequent and more difficult to resolve? I don't think so. The state can intervene as a last resort without being part of the contract or sanctioning it.

I mean, in the child-visitation terms example you give: what happens if the parents aren't married? Are you saying that the government can only take the child away of the non-complying part if the parents are married?

mogrovejo

12-11-2009, 06:55 PM

I was referring to your situation A being "positively discriminate" in regards to your situation B.

That aside, I'd also like to why you are bringing up positive discrimination at all in this thread.

I think I've already answered those questions in the post above - if not in an intelligible way, let me know. But I wasn't the one bringing up positive discrimination in this thread.

admiralsnackbar

12-11-2009, 07:02 PM

Ah, okay. I'm not a Libertarian and if I could be seen as one then Ron Paul wouldn't. I have no problem with the role of law, quite the contrary; I'd very much like to see the role of legislation reduced (http://www.amazon.com/Law-Legislation-Liberty-Rules-Order/dp/0226320863).

Is wanting a reduction in legislation quite contrary to appreciating the role of law? I guess I don't see the opposition you're alluding to, man.

A huge majority of the contracts signed between parties are private law (a somehow misleading expression in Anglo-Saxonic countries, I think) - they only involve individuals, not the state. There are plenty of private (not state-sanctioned) jurisdictions - in international business for example. The parts just agree with the jurisdiction of a forum. See the arbitrary courts, for example. Are people less prone to comply with those kind of contracts or are contractual disputes more frequent and more difficult to resolve? I don't think so. The state can intervene as a last resort without being part of the contract or sanctioning it.

That's all well and good, but perhaps I mistakenly assumed we were talking about contracts that happen on a human scale? So I guess I don't understand why your examples are germane. As I said in my last post to you, handshake deals probably are the most common contract, but if they are broken and the parties cannot resolve the issue peaceably, they will seek out arbiters with the authority to enforce justice. At the end of this spectrum of justice is the law, and the buck stops there. So if I'm speaking in absolutes, I feel the law is the ultimate arbiter and custodian of justice even if not every contract need invoke it at the outset. Does that make sense? Sorry... I get wordy when I'm tired. :lol

PS, in international biz, most people use sovereign risk as a way to moor their contracts to a known legislative entity and its protections.

I mean, in the child-visitation terms example you give: what happens if the parents aren't married? Are you saying that the government can only take the child away of the non-complying part if the parents are married?

I don't think so, no. In that case, we'd be back to a handshake deal between the mother and the father that the law was then forced to arbitrate. I guess from this you would argue that because there was no paper contract, the law wasn't involved? But as I said above, the fact that the government becomes the ultimate source of justice means -- to me -- that it is implicit in any contract. Nobody else has the ultimate authority to take the child away.

Winehole23

12-12-2009, 03:21 AM

Anglo-Saxonic countriesIn English, we say Anglo-Saxon. What do you say in Portugal?

Supergirl

12-13-2009, 12:42 AM

Why is it a crime if you call someone a ###### or fag but if you call them something like an "asshole" or "fucker", then it's okay? .

Um, since when is it a crime to call anybody anything? I mean, I suppose if you call them something enough time to have it be "harassment" then it's a crime, and certainly if you're calling them something while beating the shit out of them, then it's a crime. But just calling someone a name isn't a "crime" - but it does make you an asshole.

Supergirl

12-13-2009, 12:43 AM

Oh and what the hell does hate crime legislation have to do with gay marriage? Could we stick to one topic, please?

mogrovejo

12-13-2009, 01:55 PM

In English, we say Anglo-Saxon. What do you say in Portugal?

They say it both ways, anglosaxão or anglosaxónico. Saxonic exists as a word in the English language, right?

Is wanting a reduction in legislation quite contrary to appreciating the role of law? I guess I don't see the opposition you're alluding to, man.

Eh, I was making an unnecessary and lateral, for this discussion, distinction between law and legislation.

Law, in the modern sense, has two meanings. The nomos aspect of law, or the norms established by the evolution of culture and institutions is different from the thesis aspect, which is the statute of law passed by a legislature.

Rules of conduct can be legislated, Hayek writes, but statues passed by legislatures do not have to become rules of conduct. Modern governments tend to have organizations within a larger bureaucracy that make its rules of conduct different from that of private organizations. These differences are designated by the application of public and private laws. Public law applies to organizations and can be made, Hayek argues, while private law is determined by the spontaneous order principle. They are not, the author emphasizes, the same as public and private welfare. Spontaneous order creates laws that govern the general welfare, and is more important in determining general welfare than the services and benefits some citizens receive associated with government organizations.

http://unix.dfn.org/af_FAHayek_vol1.shtml

That's all well and good, but perhaps I mistakenly assumed we were talking about contracts that happen on a human scale? So I guess I don't understand why your examples are germane. As I said in my last post to you, handshake deals probably are the most common contract, but if they are broken and the parties cannot resolve the issue peaceably, they will seek out arbiters with the authority to enforce justice. At the end of this spectrum of justice is the law, and the buck stops there. So if I'm speaking in absolutes, I feel the law is the ultimate arbiter and custodian of justice even if not every contract need invoke it at the outset. Does that make sense? Sorry... I get wordy when I'm tired. :lol

PS, in international biz, most people use sovereign risk as a way to moor their contracts to a known legislative entity and its protections.

I don't think so, no. In that case, we'd be back to a handshake deal between the mother and the father that the law was then forced to arbitrate. I guess from this you would argue that because there was no paper contract, the law wasn't involved? But as I said above, the fact that the government becomes the ultimate source of justice means -- to me -- that it is implicit in any contract. Nobody else has the ultimate authority to take the child away.

Okay, we're in basic agreement - even though I think that private forums of justice can be used to solve disputes arising from marriage contracts, I can accept the state jurisdiction as the last resort for contractual disputes. My point is that it doesn't follow that the government has to regulate the contract of marriage. Marriage contracts would still be valid even if agreed without the explicit recognition by the state. Courts can and do enforce private contracts, as long as they don't violate superior law. Delete any piece of legislation in which the word "marriage" appears and no problem whatsoever would exist - in fact, I believe that would reinforce the status of the marriage contract.

Jacob1983

12-13-2009, 02:43 PM

The point I was trying to make is why is it that people make a federal case when someone is called a fag or ######? However, if someone is called an asshole or fucker then it's okay. I'm sure some people probably don't care being called an asshole or fucker but I bet a good number of people probably don't like and it hurts their feelings.

Winehole23

12-14-2009, 01:44 AM

. Saxonic exists as a word in the English language, right? Not that I've ever heard. Your use of it was the first I ever saw. And I've read a little.

I studied Anglo-Saxon, and I still have the seven volumes of the ASPR.

Winehole23

12-14-2009, 01:53 AM

I find through cursory googling and in my OED that saxonic is actually a word, though I still maintain its usage is minor and conspicuous.

Winehole23

12-14-2009, 01:57 AM

The point I was trying to make is why is it that people make a federal case when someone is called a fag or ######? If you do it so much it ruins the work environment, then maybe you have a personal problem, and yes, maybe also a civil rights lawsuit on your hands.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Winehole23

12-14-2009, 02:20 AM

At any rate, Anglo-Saxonic does not appear in the 1895 OED. Neither it nor saxonic appear in my American Heritage Dictionary. Nor have I heard either uttered in conversation, ever.

Winehole23

12-14-2009, 02:24 AM

Anglo-Saxon is the usual adjectival form.

Saxonic is peculiar and perhaps academic, while Anglo-Saxonic is wholly nonexistent in the idiom as far as I can tell. (Saving your own idiosyncratic usage of course.)

Jacob1983

12-14-2009, 03:36 AM

So if someone is called an asshole, cock sucker, or fucker then it's not a federal case and their civil rights weren't violated? And you should basically just suck it up and take it? I just think it's funny and a little sad how many double standards there are in America when it comes to prejudice and racism.

ChumpDumper

12-14-2009, 04:08 AM

It's not a federal case either way. I just think it's funny and a little sad how much this bothers you.

Jacob1983

12-14-2009, 04:44 AM

It doesn't really bother me. I just think it's interesting.

ChumpDumper

12-14-2009, 04:51 AM

Of course it bothers you. You've been harping on the same point for two days.

admiralsnackbar

12-14-2009, 06:04 AM

My point is that it doesn't follow that the government has to regulate the contract of marriage. Marriage contracts would still be valid even if agreed without the explicit recognition by the state. Courts can and do enforce private contracts, as long as they don't violate superior law. Delete any piece of legislation in which the word "marriage" appears and no problem whatsoever would exist - in fact, I believe that would reinforce the status of the marriage contract.

If people have appealed to the government to regulate these contracts, it does, in fact, fall upon them to do so. Trying to suggest that something that, at present, is so strictly codified falls under the rubric of hand-shake deals seems a little slippery to me.

mogrovejo

12-14-2009, 06:09 PM

At any rate, Anglo-Saxonic does not appear in the 1895 OED. Neither it nor saxonic appear in my American Heritage Dictionary. Nor have I heard either uttered in conversation, ever.

I don't know, I thought saxonic was a word, maybe it isn't. Don't you live in Texas or something? Perhaps it's a word used in other circles, albeit not the ones someone like you would be familiar with.

If people have appealed to the government to regulate these contracts, it does, in fact, fall upon them to do so. Trying to suggest that something that, at present, is so strictly codified falls under the rubric of hand-shake deals seems a little slippery to me.

When have "people" appealed to government? The judiciary branch can regulate disputes among individuals without the consequence that legislature has to write legislation to address those situations and codify the law. Contracts are valid and enforceable even when the government isn't part of them.

admiralsnackbar

12-14-2009, 06:19 PM

I don't know, I thought saxonic was a word, maybe it isn't. Don't you live in Texas or something? Perhaps it's a word used in other circles, albeit not the ones someone like you would be familiar with.

When have "people" appealed to government? The judiciary branch can regulate disputes among individuals without the consequence that legislature has to write legislation to address those situations and codify the law. Contracts are valid and enforceable even when the government isn't part of them.

I don't understand why you keep trying to frame the discussion as though there weren't hundreds of years of nuptial law on the books. We aren't talking about some Enlightenment-style pre-legal state of nature, we're talking about this country. Present day.

As for people appealing to the government to regulate marriages, I'd guess it probably has something to do with marriages having a strong component of asset consolidation.

mogrovejo

12-14-2009, 06:33 PM

I don't understand why you keep trying to frame the discussion as though there weren't hundreds of years of nuptial law on the books. We aren't talking about some Enlightenment-style pre-legal state of nature, we're talking about this country. Present day.

I'm talking about that country, current day. What exactly would happen if those hundred of benefits granted only to married people were repealed? The society would dissolve in hedonistic chaos?

As for people appealing to the government to regulate marriages, I'd guess it probably has something to do with marriages having a strong component of asset consolidation.

I guess one could be married without any kind of asset consolidation and vice-versa. I still don't see how that forces to the codification of marriage contracts into legislation.

admiralsnackbar

12-14-2009, 06:39 PM

I'm talking about that country, current day. What exactly would happen if those hundred of benefits granted only to married people were repealed? The society would dissolve in hedonistic chaos?

I guess I don't really care to venture an opinion on what would happen since there seems to be no demand for it to happen in this country, present day.

I guess one could be married without any kind of asset consolidation and vice-versa. I still don't see how that forces to the codification of marriage contracts into legislation.

And yet that's how it is.

mogrovejo

12-14-2009, 06:48 PM

I guess I don't really care to venture an opinion on what would happen since there seems to be no demand for it to happen in this country, present day.

An argumentum ad populum.

And yet that's how it is.

And yet the way it is doesn't mean it is the way it ought to be.

admiralsnackbar

12-14-2009, 06:54 PM

Winehole23

12-14-2009, 07:20 PM

I don't know, I thought saxonic was a word, maybe it isn't.Saxonic is really a word, albeit an unusual one. There is no support for Anglo-Saxonic that I can find. Your own use of it appears to be hypercorrected by analogy.

Don't you live in Texas or something?I certainly do. I hail from the backwater of Austin, Tx, though I was born in San Antonio.

Perhaps it's a word used in other circles, albeit not the ones someone like you would be familiar withYeah, I probably shouldn't make so have made so much of the commonly-used adjectival form of Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Saxon.

Mogro's right. The fact that neither my two OE professors, nor any of the secondary literature I saw, nor any of my fellow students ever said Anglo-Saxonic even once may not count for very much next to mogro's knack for analogy.

jack sommerset

12-14-2009, 08:47 PM

Basically she is saying marriage is a joke now a days and why not let the gays in the circus too. She may have a point.

Winehole23

12-14-2009, 11:40 PM

Are you still arguing you're talking about reality? Because it seems like you have an ideal to which you're trying to bend reality toAnd if you don't believe it, you're crazy.
Didn't you just make some extravagant post pooh-pooh-ing Libertarians for just this sort of behavior?Oh. It's a full on pissin match. :popcorn

MiamiHeat

12-15-2009, 12:44 AM

yawn

admiralsnackbar

12-15-2009, 08:38 AM

And if you don't believe it, you're crazy.Oh. It's a full on pissin match. :popcorn

I want to say pant-pissing isn't my particular bailiwick, but helas... guilty as charged. This tailored perma-press Mon-Calamarian pantsuit of mine is sopping wet trying to figure out what the eff mojo is trying to argue.

Fortunately I'm an amphibian.:toast

mogrovejo

12-15-2009, 02:40 PM

Are you still arguing you're talking about reality? Because it seems like you have an ideal to which you're trying to bend reality to. Didn't you just make some extravagant post pooh-pooh-ing Libertarians for just this sort of behavior?

No. I'm talking about the very concrete marriages of the very concrete world of today. I'm asking you what would be the big problem with it - and it's not like this would be some new experience. Say the Federal Marriage Defence Act (or whatever the name is) is repealed (and not replaced by a similar bill), the fiscal benefits granted to married people in the tax code are repealed and that a state legislature decides that the state will recognize every marriage contract as long as the marriage ceremony had witnesses and the marriage is between two consenting people not previously married. What would be the big deal?

I'm not arguing that marriage doesn't conform to some theoretical concept of Liberty and therefore should be out-ruled of the face of the land, as a libertarian would.