Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The also are over represented in poor urban environments. (IE: they are poor, live in shit neighborhoods, and have a lot of people around whom to commit crimes with/against).

However… Even if the police “targeted” them… Does that mean they were innocent or just got caught. Because if it is the latter, I don’t give a fuck what color you are, you fucked up, you pay the price.
[/quote]

Ya, I don’t disagree. Socieconomics obviously plays a role. If you’re guilt you’re guilty. All I am trying to say is that is that it’s odd that one or two demographic make such a large percentage of those in prison especially considering those same demographics are a small portion of the population as a whole.

[quote]
Fine… Still not following how this says anything about whether people are equal under the law or not. [/quote]

I’m not saying they aren’t equal. I’m saying we need to be vigilant in making sure the law isn’t applied unequally. The law is the law is the law and it shouldn’t matter if you’re Bill Gates, Ray Rice, or Joe Smoe.

I’m a realist though and understand sometimes that’s just life.

[quote]
I’m not going to entertain comparing the financial crisis and systematic sickness brought on through decades of intervention and general lack of math skills to street crime, and you shouldn’t either. You’re much smarter than that. [/quote]

I’m not comparing the two. All I’m saying (the point I believe the author was trying to make) is that laws were very clearly broken and no one went to jail. That is why I said I’m not so sure the application of laws across the board is equal.

You should reap what you sow whether you rob the local Royal Farms or you commit Fraud. It appears (key word) that only the folks robbing the local grocery store are the ones being punished. Maybe that’s not true I haven’t looking into it that much.

42

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.

So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.

GREAT!

Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…

  1. Works (and pays taxes)
  2. Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
  3. Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
  4. Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.

So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.

GREAT! Keep 'em coming.

Pun intended.[/quote]

Well that sure is progressive. Who needs children or families when you can have some wealthy queers from San Francisco move in? Besides, children don’t pay any taxes at all. They’re just parasites.[/quote]

You are presenting a logical fallacy of a false dilemma. There is plenty of room in Maine for both gays and heterosexuals. Allowing gays to marry has not, to my knowledge, prevented a single heterosexual couple from starting a family.
[/quote]

It’s a question of value. Traditional marriage is more valuable as it is geared towards reproduction and child rearing. It is the children and the family that creates and nurtures them that creates the value. You actually realise this - even if only subconsciously - because you are trying to add value to gay unions by saying how they have benefited your state. You are trying to raise the social value of gay unions to the level of traditional families - unsuccessfully I might add.[/quote]

And now we get to your next logical fallacy, the straw man.

Nowhere did I claim that gay unions present the same social value of a heterosexual union. The reasons for this are self-evident for a species intent on long-term survival.

I simply claimed that they can be a positive social force, which is absolutely true. Raising children is not the only way to contribute positively.

I’d gladly trade a heterosexual who moved to Maine because his Massachusetts state benefits expired for a homosexual engineer who moved here to live his life without being hassled by backwards rednecks in Alabama.
[/quote]

No one is “hassling” gay people. Sure there’s a handful of loons like Westboro Baptist that do but 99.99% of “rednecks” have never and would never harass gay people.
[/quote]

Well, the 0.01 % sure do a good job of making themselves heard on the matter. I’m quite sure that harassment of gays is alive and well in the US, and there are many parts of the world where being gay is grounds for execution.

It also defies common sense to think that a gay person could expect similar treatment in a place like Alabama compared to a place like Maine.

But gay people’s subjective experiences in different locations is neither here nor there. We were discussing your logical fallacies, no?[/quote]

Well, you cried logical fallacy but that’s not the case. Possibly I misinterpreted what you were initially saying. After clarification it appears you are saying that traditional marriage has more intrinsic value but that doesn’t mean gay marriage doesn’t have some value too. But that is missing the point. It is not being married that is of value to society. It is marriage itself that is valuable to society. It is the institution of marriage that has the value. Now if you diminish the institution of marriage to a contractual arrangement between two people then the actual value of marriage itself is annihilated. Marriage no longer has any value to society.[/quote]

Looks like you followed that up with another straw man.

Nowhere did I say that gay marriage, or marriage in general, is nothing more than a contract. Indeed the feelings and commitment that two gay people have towards each other are not inherently less genuine than those shared by a man and a woman.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that broadening the definition of marriage reduces the intrinsic value of traditional man/woman marriages that produce babies. I do not see the cause/effect relationship here.

Explain how this mechanism works. [/quote]

Again, it is not the marriages that have value as such. It is the institution of marriage itself that has value. This is pretty simple. If “marriage” is redefined so as to include same sex couples then “marriage” itself loses any value that it once had. In defining what it is, it is also defining what it isn’t.

43

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe that’s not true I haven’t looking into it that much. [/quote]

I think billions of dollars in fines and penalties sort of negates the point.

44

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
All I am trying to say is that is that it’s odd that one or two demographic make such a large percentage of those in prison especially considering those same demographics are a small portion of the population as a whole. [/quote]

I would imagine there is a lot at play here that goes well and beyond race.

[quote]
I’m not saying they aren’t equal. I’m saying we need to be vigilant in making sure the law isn’t applied unequally. The law is the law is the law and it shouldn’t matter if you’re Bill Gates, Ray Rice, or Joe Smoe.

I’m a realist though and understand sometimes that’s just life. [/quote]

I guess I’m not convinced that prison population demographics demonstrate this, and need proof beyond “there are a lot of black people in prison.” Because unless they are innocent… It proves nothing other than they got caught.

[quote]
I’m not comparing the two. All I’m saying (the point I believe the author was trying to make) is that laws were very clearly broken and no one went to jail. That is why I said I’m not so sure the application of laws across the board is equal.

You should reap what you sow whether you rob the local Royal Farms or you commit Fraud. It appears (key word) that only the folks robbing the local grocery store are the ones being punished. Maybe that’s not true I haven’t looking into it that much. [/quote]

Billions of dollars in fines > jail time even if you could narrow down to an individual the fraud, which you can’t. It was a systematic problem.

45

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe that’s not true I haven’t looking into it that much. [/quote]

I think billions of dollars in fines and penalties sort of negates the point.

[/quote]

I tend to disagree for the simple fact that the fines are typically (as far as I know) imposed on the companies not the actually perpetrator(s).

If Person A robs a convenience store they don’t get a fine they get jail time (typically). If Banker A or CEO B actively commits fraud Company A or B is punished, which of course affects Employee X, Y, and Z collaterally. Is there collateral damage for the banker or CEO? There can be. Does it hurt them the same way sub-prime junk mortgages affected the average 55 year old Blue Collar work that lost 2/3rds of their life savings? Probably not.

I guess I just don’t see that as justice. The only exception I can think of is Maddoff.

46

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.

So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.

GREAT!

Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…

  1. Works (and pays taxes)
  2. Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
  3. Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
  4. Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.

So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.

GREAT! Keep 'em coming.

Pun intended.[/quote]

Well that sure is progressive. Who needs children or families when you can have some wealthy queers from San Francisco move in? Besides, children don’t pay any taxes at all. They’re just parasites.[/quote]

You are presenting a logical fallacy of a false dilemma. There is plenty of room in Maine for both gays and heterosexuals. Allowing gays to marry has not, to my knowledge, prevented a single heterosexual couple from starting a family.
[/quote]

It’s a question of value. Traditional marriage is more valuable as it is geared towards reproduction and child rearing. It is the children and the family that creates and nurtures them that creates the value. You actually realise this - even if only subconsciously - because you are trying to add value to gay unions by saying how they have benefited your state. You are trying to raise the social value of gay unions to the level of traditional families - unsuccessfully I might add.[/quote]

And now we get to your next logical fallacy, the straw man.

Nowhere did I claim that gay unions present the same social value of a heterosexual union. The reasons for this are self-evident for a species intent on long-term survival.

I simply claimed that they can be a positive social force, which is absolutely true. Raising children is not the only way to contribute positively.

I’d gladly trade a heterosexual who moved to Maine because his Massachusetts state benefits expired for a homosexual engineer who moved here to live his life without being hassled by backwards rednecks in Alabama.
[/quote]

No one is “hassling” gay people. Sure there’s a handful of loons like Westboro Baptist that do but 99.99% of “rednecks” have never and would never harass gay people.
[/quote]

Well, the 0.01 % sure do a good job of making themselves heard on the matter. I’m quite sure that harassment of gays is alive and well in the US, and there are many parts of the world where being gay is grounds for execution.

It also defies common sense to think that a gay person could expect similar treatment in a place like Alabama compared to a place like Maine.

But gay people’s subjective experiences in different locations is neither here nor there. We were discussing your logical fallacies, no?[/quote]

Well, you cried logical fallacy but that’s not the case. Possibly I misinterpreted what you were initially saying. After clarification it appears you are saying that traditional marriage has more intrinsic value but that doesn’t mean gay marriage doesn’t have some value too. But that is missing the point. It is not being married that is of value to society. It is marriage itself that is valuable to society. It is the institution of marriage that has the value. Now if you diminish the institution of marriage to a contractual arrangement between two people then the actual value of marriage itself is annihilated. Marriage no longer has any value to society.[/quote]

Looks like you followed that up with another straw man.

Nowhere did I say that gay marriage, or marriage in general, is nothing more than a contract. Indeed the feelings and commitment that two gay people have towards each other are not inherently less genuine than those shared by a man and a woman.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that broadening the definition of marriage reduces the intrinsic value of traditional man/woman marriages that produce babies. I do not see the cause/effect relationship here.

Explain how this mechanism works. [/quote]

Again, it is not the marriages that have value as such. It is the institution of marriage itself that has value. This is pretty simple. If “marriage” is redefined so as to include same sex couples then “marriage” itself loses any value that it once had. In defining what it is, it is also defining what it isn’t.[/quote]

Okay, I’ll buy that. But there’s one problem. Marriage, at least in the US, has been redefined a number of times. In revolutionary times, a woman was basically a husband’s property, with few rights of her own. Slaveholding states did not allow slaves to marry, not even freed slaves. Even mixed race marriages were not recognized as recently as a few decades ago.

So this notion that marriage is some kind of social rock that has always been a particular way is ridiculous. Marriage has always been an evolving concept.

Do you believe that marriage, by redefining what it is and is not, lost value when slaves were allowed to marry?

Do you believe that marriage, by redefining what it is and is not, lost value when mixed-race couples were allowed to marry?

47

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would imagine there is a lot at play here that goes well and beyond race. [/quote]

I agree and though I said as much in my 2nd post.

[quote]
I guess I’m not convinced that prison population demographics demonstrate this, and need proof beyond “there are a lot of black people in prison.” Because unless they are innocent… It proves nothing other than they got caught. [/quote]

I am more or less saying there should probably be more rich people or white collar criminals in prison than there currently are. Not that the poor minorities are “targeted” or falsely imprisons.

[quote]
Billions of dollars in fines > jail time even if you could narrow down to an individual the fraud, which you can’t. It was a systematic problem. [/quote]

I agree it was a systematic problem, but imo the fines weren’t enough especially considering that the fines only effect upper level management so much. I.E. it isn’t a strong enough deterrent to management imo.

I don’t know off the top of my head, but I imagine a number of the “to big to fail” banks were fined while simultaneous being bailed out. What kind of message does that send?

48

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe that’s not true I haven’t looking into it that much. [/quote]

I think billions of dollars in fines and penalties sort of negates the point.

[/quote]

I tend to disagree for the simple fact that the fines are typically (as far as I know) imposed on the companies not the actually perpetrator(s).

If Person A robs a convenience store they don’t get a fine they get jail time (typically). If Banker A or CEO B actively commits fraud Company A or B is punished, which of course affects Employee X, Y, and Z collaterally. Is there collateral damage for the banker or CEO? There can be. Does it hurt them the same way sub-prime junk mortgages affected the average 55 year old Blue Collar work that lost 2/3rds of their life savings? Probably not.

I guess I just don’t see that as justice. The only exception I can think of is Maddoff. [/quote]

The jerkoff who couldn’t afford the adjustable rate mortgage, yet still signed it, average 55 year old, certainly plays part in the blame.

You can not narrow down the FC to a handful of players and put them in jail. You are talking millions of people, spread over decades here, some of them being POTUS and other cabinet members.

I know it would hit everyone right in the good feels to have a bad guy, but… We can’t. It’s on all of us. The Bad Guy Speech (Scarface) - YouTube

This is what people want, but… Tony nails it here.

Moron that robbed a corner store at gun point, that shit is on him…

49

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I am more or less saying there should probably be more rich people or white collar criminals in prison than there currently are. Not that the poor minorities are “targeted” or falsely imprisons. [/quote]

Start a task force then?

I’d venture to say that we could do with less people in prison over all. Putting non-violent offenders in with violent offenders and turning them into hardened criminals for selling some weed is fucking stupid.

In fact, if the Drug War was handled differently you’d magically see all these “America is so racist” crime stats suddenly not be so racist anymore.

Urban area:

  1. More minorities
  2. More people (opportunity to exploit)
  3. More police with less area to cover

Suburban area:

  1. Less minorities
  2. Less people and more spread out (less opportunity to exploit)
  3. Less police with more area to cover

I’m sure there are racist cops out there, no fucking doubt about it. I live in MA, they almost all are.

But by this metric that would make Vermont the most racist place in the world, something like 98% white and 95% of the prison population is black…

[quote]
I agree it was a systematic problem, but imo the fines weren’t enough especially considering that the fines only effect upper level management so much. I.E. it isn’t a strong enough deterrent to management imo.

I don’t know off the top of my head, but I imagine a number of the “to big to fail” banks were fined while simultaneous being bailed out. What kind of message does that send? [/quote]

Who do you want in jail? Specific names. And why? Specific actions?

(Don’t bother to answer, I’m just saying that before Zep jumps in with his bullshit.)

50

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Okay, I’ll buy that. But there’s one problem. Marriage, at least in the US, has been redefined a number of times. In revolutionary times, a woman was basically a husband’s property, with few rights of her own.
[/quote]

This is more an evolution of human rights. Marriage was still a man and a woman creating a family.

Again, it was more an evolution of human rights. Marriage was always a child producing/rearing proposition.

No. Because the essential nature of marriage remained the same: man + woman > children > family. It is this structure that has remained constant and it is this structure that I am referring to when I speak of “marriage.”

No. As Bernice King said, “my father did not take a bullet for same sex marriage.”

51

I being a minority can’t stand when people compare the civil rights movement and the years of torture/killings slaves endured to the current “struggle” of gays. Sex Machine you make some very thought provoking, valid points IMO.

52

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Curious, are supporters of gay marriage for or against family members marrying? Because if it’s a “rights” and a “choice” issue not a moral/religious one… There cannot be any judgement on whom you marry, correct?

Example: adult first cousins[/quote]

Well, first cousins married with the full blessing of both the church and state for many centuries, so this is a curious question to ask in the context of a discussion about non-traditional marriage.

Regardless of whether such unions are sanctioned by the state, family members will still, on occasion, fuck. No laws will stop this behavior which will, on occasion, produce children born under less than ideal genetic and environmental situations.

Would state sanctioning this help or hinder such behavior? I have no idea, but the social cost of fucking cousins is, all things considered, very low.

So yes, I wouldn’t have a problem with state sanctioned marriages between cousins. In a world where people literally shit on each other for sexual satisfaction and the friendly, mild-mannered woman from accounting could be a depraved pansexual fuck fiend behind closed doors, I find it rather difficult to worry very much about what other people are doing for their jollies.

Building on that ambivalence about other people’s sexual practices, I see little drawback to the state officially recognizing all types of life partnerships when people are already living that way.

Really, who the fuck cares? How is this important? I’m all for traditional families, but I don’t see how the recognition of other arrangements has any detrimental impact to a man and a woman who want to get married and have babies. They don’t even know that the guy who just moved in next door to them likes to get pissed on by women in latex suits, and they’ve got him bringing pasta salad to the dinner party.
[/quote]

Ok very well. What about mother and son??

53

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Curious, are supporters of gay marriage for or against family members marrying? Because if it’s a “rights” and a “choice” issue not a moral/religious one… There cannot be any judgement on whom you marry, correct?

Example: adult first cousins[/quote]

Well, first cousins married with the full blessing of both the church and state for many centuries, so this is a curious question to ask in the context of a discussion about non-traditional marriage.

Regardless of whether such unions are sanctioned by the state, family members will still, on occasion, fuck. No laws will stop this behavior which will, on occasion, produce children born under less than ideal genetic and environmental situations.

Would state sanctioning this help or hinder such behavior? I have no idea, but the social cost of fucking cousins is, all things considered, very low.

So yes, I wouldn’t have a problem with state sanctioned marriages between cousins. In a world where people literally shit on each other for sexual satisfaction and the friendly, mild-mannered woman from accounting could be a depraved pansexual fuck fiend behind closed doors, I find it rather difficult to worry very much about what other people are doing for their jollies.

Building on that ambivalence about other people’s sexual practices, I see little drawback to the state officially recognizing all types of life partnerships when people are already living that way.

Really, who the fuck cares? How is this important? I’m all for traditional families, but I don’t see how the recognition of other arrangements has any detrimental impact to a man and a woman who want to get married and have babies. They don’t even know that the guy who just moved in next door to them likes to get pissed on by women in latex suits, and they’ve got him bringing pasta salad to the dinner party.
[/quote]

Ok very well. What about mother and son??
[/quote]

I am impressed that you didn’t jump right to…

“What about a man and his dog?”

Keep that ace up your sleeve.

54

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Curious, are supporters of gay marriage for or against family members marrying? Because if it’s a “rights” and a “choice” issue not a moral/religious one… There cannot be any judgement on whom you marry, correct?

Example: adult first cousins[/quote]

Well, first cousins married with the full blessing of both the church and state for many centuries, so this is a curious question to ask in the context of a discussion about non-traditional marriage.

Regardless of whether such unions are sanctioned by the state, family members will still, on occasion, fuck. No laws will stop this behavior which will, on occasion, produce children born under less than ideal genetic and environmental situations.

Would state sanctioning this help or hinder such behavior? I have no idea, but the social cost of fucking cousins is, all things considered, very low.

So yes, I wouldn’t have a problem with state sanctioned marriages between cousins. In a world where people literally shit on each other for sexual satisfaction and the friendly, mild-mannered woman from accounting could be a depraved pansexual fuck fiend behind closed doors, I find it rather difficult to worry very much about what other people are doing for their jollies.

Building on that ambivalence about other people’s sexual practices, I see little drawback to the state officially recognizing all types of life partnerships when people are already living that way.

Really, who the fuck cares? How is this important? I’m all for traditional families, but I don’t see how the recognition of other arrangements has any detrimental impact to a man and a woman who want to get married and have babies. They don’t even know that the guy who just moved in next door to them likes to get pissed on by women in latex suits, and they’ve got him bringing pasta salad to the dinner party.
[/quote]

Ok very well. What about mother and son??
[/quote]

I am impressed that you didn’t jump right to…

“What about a man and his dog?”

Keep that ace up your sleeve.
[/quote]

Well, are you for or against intra-family marriage? Where do we draw the line? And if we do draw a line, why do we draw it? Saying it’s ok for cousins to marry but not mother and son… you are making a moral argument. Correct? I’m just saying…

“Who are YOU to decide who can and cannot marry? Based on WHOSE morals?”

See, that’s the fallacy of an argument without any moral/traditional/societal norm. You CANNNOT draw the line.

55

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Curious, are supporters of gay marriage for or against family members marrying? Because if it’s a “rights” and a “choice” issue not a moral/religious one… There cannot be any judgement on whom you marry, correct?

Example: adult first cousins[/quote]

Well, first cousins married with the full blessing of both the church and state for many centuries, so this is a curious question to ask in the context of a discussion about non-traditional marriage.

Regardless of whether such unions are sanctioned by the state, family members will still, on occasion, fuck. No laws will stop this behavior which will, on occasion, produce children born under less than ideal genetic and environmental situations.

Would state sanctioning this help or hinder such behavior? I have no idea, but the social cost of fucking cousins is, all things considered, very low.

So yes, I wouldn’t have a problem with state sanctioned marriages between cousins. In a world where people literally shit on each other for sexual satisfaction and the friendly, mild-mannered woman from accounting could be a depraved pansexual fuck fiend behind closed doors, I find it rather difficult to worry very much about what other people are doing for their jollies.

Building on that ambivalence about other people’s sexual practices, I see little drawback to the state officially recognizing all types of life partnerships when people are already living that way.

Really, who the fuck cares? How is this important? I’m all for traditional families, but I don’t see how the recognition of other arrangements has any detrimental impact to a man and a woman who want to get married and have babies. They don’t even know that the guy who just moved in next door to them likes to get pissed on by women in latex suits, and they’ve got him bringing pasta salad to the dinner party.
[/quote]

Ok very well. What about mother and son??
[/quote]

I am impressed that you didn’t jump right to…

“What about a man and his dog?”

Keep that ace up your sleeve.
[/quote]

Well, are you for or against intra-family marriage? Where do we draw the line? And if we do draw a line, why do we draw it? Saying it’s ok for cousins to marry but not mother and son… you are making a moral argument. Correct? I’m just saying…

“Who are YOU to decide who can and cannot marry? Based on WHOSE morals?”

See, that’s the fallacy of an argument without any moral/traditional/societal norm. You CANNNOT draw the line.[/quote]

The fallacy of your argument is that nobody is advocating for intra-family marriage. I humored your straw man, but the question at hand concerns the marriage of same sex couples, not family members.

The irony of bringing up a backwards tradition that we have since discarded (redefining marriage in the process) to posit that marriage should not be further redefined is seemingly lost on you.

56

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Curious, are supporters of gay marriage for or against family members marrying? Because if it’s a “rights” and a “choice” issue not a moral/religious one… There cannot be any judgement on whom you marry, correct?

Example: adult first cousins[/quote]

Well, first cousins married with the full blessing of both the church and state for many centuries, so this is a curious question to ask in the context of a discussion about non-traditional marriage.

Regardless of whether such unions are sanctioned by the state, family members will still, on occasion, fuck. No laws will stop this behavior which will, on occasion, produce children born under less than ideal genetic and environmental situations.

Would state sanctioning this help or hinder such behavior? I have no idea, but the social cost of fucking cousins is, all things considered, very low.

So yes, I wouldn’t have a problem with state sanctioned marriages between cousins. In a world where people literally shit on each other for sexual satisfaction and the friendly, mild-mannered woman from accounting could be a depraved pansexual fuck fiend behind closed doors, I find it rather difficult to worry very much about what other people are doing for their jollies.

Building on that ambivalence about other people’s sexual practices, I see little drawback to the state officially recognizing all types of life partnerships when people are already living that way.

Really, who the fuck cares? How is this important? I’m all for traditional families, but I don’t see how the recognition of other arrangements has any detrimental impact to a man and a woman who want to get married and have babies. They don’t even know that the guy who just moved in next door to them likes to get pissed on by women in latex suits, and they’ve got him bringing pasta salad to the dinner party.
[/quote]

Ok very well. What about mother and son??
[/quote]

I am impressed that you didn’t jump right to…

“What about a man and his dog?”

Keep that ace up your sleeve.
[/quote]

Well, are you for or against intra-family marriage? Where do we draw the line? And if we do draw a line, why do we draw it? Saying it’s ok for cousins to marry but not mother and son… you are making a moral argument. Correct? I’m just saying…

“Who are YOU to decide who can and cannot marry? Based on WHOSE morals?”

See, that’s the fallacy of an argument without any moral/traditional/societal norm. You CANNNOT draw the line.[/quote]

The fallacy of your argument is that nobody is advocating for intra-family marriage. I humored your straw man, but the question at hand concerns the marriage of same sex couples, not family members.

The irony of bringing up a backwards tradition that we have since discarded (redefining marriage in the process) to posit that marriage should not be further redefined is seemingly lost on you.

[/quote]

Why can’t a mother and a son be a couple then? Don’t you understand the same legal argument can be made for same sex and family members? It’s not based on morality.

57

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe that’s not true I haven’t looking into it that much. [/quote]

I think billions of dollars in fines and penalties sort of negates the point.

[/quote]

As an aside, there is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between getting fined, yet retaining your freedom to getting incarcerated and getting stabbed, beaten, humiliated by guards and having to worry about getting your asshole torn out every time you take a shower.

Just sayin’…

58

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Curious, are supporters of gay marriage for or against family members marrying? Because if it’s a “rights” and a “choice” issue not a moral/religious one… There cannot be any judgement on whom you marry, correct?

Example: adult first cousins[/quote]

Well, first cousins married with the full blessing of both the church and state for many centuries, so this is a curious question to ask in the context of a discussion about non-traditional marriage.

Regardless of whether such unions are sanctioned by the state, family members will still, on occasion, fuck. No laws will stop this behavior which will, on occasion, produce children born under less than ideal genetic and environmental situations.

Would state sanctioning this help or hinder such behavior? I have no idea, but the social cost of fucking cousins is, all things considered, very low.

So yes, I wouldn’t have a problem with state sanctioned marriages between cousins. In a world where people literally shit on each other for sexual satisfaction and the friendly, mild-mannered woman from accounting could be a depraved pansexual fuck fiend behind closed doors, I find it rather difficult to worry very much about what other people are doing for their jollies.

Building on that ambivalence about other people’s sexual practices, I see little drawback to the state officially recognizing all types of life partnerships when people are already living that way.

Really, who the fuck cares? How is this important? I’m all for traditional families, but I don’t see how the recognition of other arrangements has any detrimental impact to a man and a woman who want to get married and have babies. They don’t even know that the guy who just moved in next door to them likes to get pissed on by women in latex suits, and they’ve got him bringing pasta salad to the dinner party.
[/quote]

Ok very well. What about mother and son??
[/quote]

I am impressed that you didn’t jump right to…

“What about a man and his dog?”

Keep that ace up your sleeve.
[/quote]

Well, are you for or against intra-family marriage? Where do we draw the line? And if we do draw a line, why do we draw it? Saying it’s ok for cousins to marry but not mother and son… you are making a moral argument. Correct? I’m just saying…

“Who are YOU to decide who can and cannot marry? Based on WHOSE morals?”

See, that’s the fallacy of an argument without any moral/traditional/societal norm. You CANNNOT draw the line.[/quote]

The fallacy of your argument is that nobody is advocating for intra-family marriage. I humored your straw man, but the question at hand concerns the marriage of same sex couples, not family members.

The irony of bringing up a backwards tradition that we have since discarded (redefining marriage in the process) to posit that marriage should not be further redefined is seemingly lost on you.

[/quote]

Why can’t a mother and a son be a couple then? Don’t you understand the same legal argument can be made for same sex and family members? It’s not based on morality.[/quote]

Why not advocate marrying a piece of fruit? or your favorite pet? Or any number of insane arguments THAT NO ONE IS SAYING.

Look, you can be against it all you want. The ship has sailed. Within the next two years, gay marriage WILL be legal in EVERY STATE. Mark my words. No matter how wrong you say it is, your opinion wont change that fact. Gay marriage has arrived whether you like it or not. Better get used to it.

And the reason it is becoming legal? Because YOUR argument is fundamentally flawed and you are wrong IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. You’ve lodged your head squarely up your own ass on this one, and you aren’t budging. I admire your tenacity, for sure. But evolving your opinion isn’t a shameful thing. You’ve caused MANY of my opinions to evolve (or at lease change a few degrees) over the years from reading your posts.

I just think at this point you are just being a stubborn old crotchety bastard who would rather go down with his ship than admit he’s wrong (or even admit there is an OUNCE of merit on the other end of the argument). :slight_smile:

59

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
I being a minority can’t stand when people compare the civil rights movement and the years of torture/killings slaves endured to the current “struggle” of gays. Sex Machine you make some very thought provoking, valid points IMO.[/quote]

Why? Are you saying that gays haven’t been tortured or killed for the simple fact of being gay?

Does me, being white, make me somehow “insensitive” to the plight of minorities and that I should hold my tongue when using AN HISTORICAL EXAMPLE of disenfranchisement?

This is PWI… If you can’t take the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen. You, being a “minority”, certainly don’t hold the monopoly on slavery - it’s existed for about as long as human history and ALL races have been enslaved at one time or another. My guess is that YOU were never a slave, so I’m not sure how I’ve offended YOU. Unless you are buying into that progressive, politically correct, “our feelings should be protected under the Constitution” bullshit. If that’s the case, I’m sorry, I don’t really have an interest in arguing with idiots. If it’s not the case, carry on with your argument.

60

^ That’s RACIST!!!

(beat you to it)