No shit- and you still can’t give me a valid reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to. Not one fucking thing.
I asked the same thing in the other gay marriage thread and never got an answer either.
Must not have been a gay thread I was in. After all, there’s plenty gay specific threads floating around. If I was involved, you simply didn’t recognize a “valid reason” when it was presented.[/quote]
Then give me the abridged version.
My argument in one line is “It doesn’t affect anyone other than the gays, so I don’t care.”
If you can’t sum yours up in a line or two, I’ve got to question… well, it’s existence.
No shit- and you still can’t give me a valid reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to. Not one fucking thing.
I asked the same thing in the other gay marriage thread and never got an answer either.
Must not have been a gay thread I was in. After all, there’s plenty gay specific threads floating around. If I was involved, you simply didn’t recognize a “valid reason” when it was presented.
Fighting Irish already pointed out how “valid” your reasons were.
Is this where I say neither of you have given “valid” reasons in support of homo-marriage? Then you guys say “nuh-uh, you didn’t!” And I respond “nuh-uh, you.” Which leads you two to say, “You.” Then I say “Yo.” Then you guys simply say, ‘Y.’ Until nothing is left to be said? That a ridiculous idea. Why would your two possibly want to do that?[/quote]
You haven’t even come close to explaining how it tears societal fabric apart. You keep saying it, but you don’t give any kind of details. And this goes for polygamy or whatever as well- you’re ducking it.
I don’t think the government should have anything to do with marriage of any kind. I know some claim that government recognition of marriage provides some vague incentives for people to form stable permanent relationships, which are certainly the best environment in which to raise a child. However current divorce laws make marriage a horrible idea for any man. Your wife can cheat on you, divorce you, take your house, alimony, child support (which she doesn’t have to spend on the kids) and only has to let you see your kids every other weekend.
So as long as marriage is such a collosal clusterfuck for a straight man like myself, I really don’t give a shit what any one else. Do not give a fuck.
[quote]John S. wrote:
The problem with debating alternative marriage is we are avoiding the real question.
Is marriage a Government concern or is it Religious concern?
As long as we ignore this these problems will keep popping up.[/quote]
The problem is that, for better or worse, this has already been decided when federal and state governments decided to tie thousands of legal entitlements to marriage. Where we are at now is WHAT constitutes marriage? And if something is not ‘marriage’ what relationships are we going to extend identical or similar legal rights to.
No shit- and you still can’t give me a valid reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to. Not one fucking thing.
I asked the same thing in the other gay marriage thread and never got an answer either.
Must not have been a gay thread I was in. After all, there’s plenty gay specific threads floating around. If I was involved, you simply didn’t recognize a “valid reason” when it was presented.
Then give me the abridged version.
My argument in one line is “It doesn’t affect anyone other than the gays, so I don’t care.”
If you can’t sum yours up in a line or two, I’ve got to question… well, it’s existence. [/quote]
No shit- and you still can’t give me a valid reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to. Not one fucking thing.
I asked the same thing in the other gay marriage thread and never got an answer either.
Must not have been a gay thread I was in. After all, there’s plenty gay specific threads floating around. If I was involved, you simply didn’t recognize a “valid reason” when it was presented.
Fighting Irish already pointed out how “valid” your reasons were.
Is this where I say neither of you have given “valid” reasons in support of homo-marriage? Then you guys say “nuh-uh, you didn’t!” And I respond “nuh-uh, you.” Which leads you two to say, “You.” Then I say “Yo.” Then you guys simply say, ‘Y.’ Until nothing is left to be said? That a ridiculous idea. Why would your two possibly want to do that?
You haven’t even come close to explaining how it tears societal fabric apart. You keep saying it, but you don’t give any kind of details. And this goes for polygamy or whatever as well- you’re ducking it.
[/quote]
I could say the same. Noone here has written a detailed, fleshed out, paper defending their position.
No shit- and you still can’t give me a valid reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to. Not one fucking thing.
I asked the same thing in the other gay marriage thread and never got an answer either.
Must not have been a gay thread I was in. After all, there’s plenty gay specific threads floating around. If I was involved, you simply didn’t recognize a “valid reason” when it was presented.
Then give me the abridged version.
My argument in one line is “It doesn’t affect anyone other than the gays, so I don’t care.”
If you can’t sum yours up in a line or two, I’ve got to question… well, it’s existence. [/quote]
They can sum it up like that. The argument is: “It destroys the sanctity of marriges and marks the beginning of a slippery slope that will lead to the degeneration of society.” It just happens to be wrong.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
However current divorce laws make marriage a horrible idea for any man. Your wife can cheat on you, divorce you, take your house, alimony, child support (which she doesn’t have to spend on the kids) and only has to let you see your kids every other weekend.
So as long as marriage is such a collosal clusterfuck for a straight man like myself, I really don’t give a shit what any one else. Do not give a fuck.
[/quote]
Good point as well.
Nothing like your woman calling the cops on you on a Friday night for abuse that you didn’t do, having to sit in county until Monday, and finding out she filed divorce papers and stole your savings before you got arraigned Monday morning.
It happens… and damned if that’s not “defiling marriage” in a way that would make homos cringe…
They can sum it up like that. The argument is: “It destroys the sanctity of marriges and marks the beginning of a slippery slope that will lead to the degeneration of society.” It just happens to be wrong.[/quote]
To me, it’s their job to prove that it would hurt ANYONE else, being as that’s the allegation. No one has done that.
What’s your objection to other types of marriage, i.e. polyamorists, polygamists, etc.[/quote]
My objection is that the entire point of “marriage” is to exalt/set aside/privilege one superior relationship over all the others. We formally recognize marriage because we want more of it - we want more unions of one man, one woman, and the where that ultimately leads - them raising their children.
Marriage is a Means, not an End.
I don’t care if other folks want to get into committed relationships that involve multiple partners - but we, as a society, have no reason to incentivize it, to promote it, to celebrate it. There is no social good in putting it on equal terms with traditional marriage when it is inherently unequal.
They can call them whatever they like - I object to their formal recognition no matter what the name.
Post a topic about the long-term implications of entitlement spending, or the deficit, or the Federal Reserve, or any other issue that will eventually result in the destruction of the U.S. as we know it if they are not addressed and you’ll get 10 replies.
Post a topic on gay marriage, or abortion, or “Is there a God?”, or any other topic that doesn’t matter one fucking shit and you’ll get 500 replies.[/quote]
I agree - I’d only add that these are the only things we can get Left-liberals to debate are these topics. Start a thread about economics, Obamanomics, or how treasury auctions are weakening (a very big deal), and tumbleweeds blow past.
What’s your objection to other types of marriage, i.e. polyamorists, polygamists, etc.
My objection is that the entire point of “marriage” is to exalt/set aside/privilege one superior relationship over all the others. We formally recognize marriage because we want more of it - we want more unions of one man, one woman, and the where that ultimately leads - them raising their children.
Marriage is a Means, not an End.
I don’t care if other folks want to get into committed relationships that involve multiple partners - but we, as a society, have no reason to incentivize it, to promote it, to celebrate it. There is no social good in putting it on equal terms with traditional marriage when it is inherently unequal.
[/quote]
1- who said that two men or two women can’t raise a kid as well? What’s to prove they’re worse off if raised by a loving family as opposed to two parents of opposite sexes?
2- Who is promoting or celebrating? There is a difference between “allowing” it and “incentivizing” it. There is no social evil to come from that which affects only the people involved.
Who “wants more marriages?” What do you care? Who’s social engineering now?
Which is the same answer that Sloth continues to use.
That isn’t a reason.[/quote]
That is because we spent countless posts repeating ourselves, which gets tiresome, and half the time I was trying to sift through your trainwreck arguments, which, to be charitable, had all the tightness of a drunken stroll.
Sorry to inform.
The arguments were there, the reasons were provided. You may disagree with them, and that is fine - but stop pretending that “no one provided an answer”.
Which is the same answer that Sloth continues to use.
That isn’t a reason.
That is because we spent countless posts repeating ourselves, which gets tiresome, and half the time I was trying to sift through your trainwreck arguments, which, to be charitable, had all the tightness of a drunken stroll.
Sorry to inform.
The arguments were there, the reasons were provided. You may disagree with them, and that is fine - but stop pretending that “no one provided an answer”.
[/quote]
Then stop starting threads you will know will degenerate into the same old arguments.
You’re such a bullshitter it amazes even bullshitters like myself.
Ok, question. Why do we even have state recognized marriage? Surely it’s not to pat lovers on the head as to say, ‘you love each other (be it 2 or a 50 person poly), so let’s give you these “You’re in love and screwing benefits.”’
Why not scrap the whole thing? Why not extend all benefits to every adult as an individual. The individual can assign all presently existing medical, death, legal benefits to a mother, a lover (though it won’t be under the title of a marriage any longer), a roommate, a co-worker, or even a total stranger (if that’s your thing). Why not?
I want YOUR reason to even recognize marriage, discriminating against single people, the libertarian, the anarchist, who’d prefer the above arrangement of these benefits? Why do you even support a recognition of marriage? What is it’s, absolute, vital, and indespinsable function, so important to society at large, that we’d single out those involved for a set of benefits? Seperating out the “married” from the unmarried?
Anarchists need not apply, we already know your answer. I’m interested in how many non-anarchists are actually of the mind-set to tear the whole thing down. It certainly would be a hidden motive.
Post a topic about the long-term implications of entitlement spending, or the deficit, or the Federal Reserve, or any other issue that will eventually result in the destruction of the U.S. as we know it if they are not addressed and you’ll get 10 replies.
Post a topic on gay marriage, or abortion, or “Is there a God?”, or any other topic that doesn’t matter one fucking shit and you’ll get 500 replies.
I agree - I’d only add that these are the only things we can get Left-liberals to debate are these topics. Start a thread about economics, Obamanomics, or how treasury auctions are weakening (a very big deal), and tumbleweeds blow past.[/quote]
Right… the fault of the liberals, as always. Even though its well known that social issues are ALWAYS the hot button issues. And anytime you start a thread about economics it turns into a debate over how anarchists would run the whole thing better. OK. Right.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And anytime you start a thread about economics it turns into a debate over how anarchists would run the whole thing better. OK. Right. [/quote]
1- who said that two men or two women can’t raise a kid as well? What’s to prove they’re worse off if raised by a loving family as opposed to two parents of opposite sexes?[/quote]
You mean to tell me you believe that a child being raised by its biological parents is no better than any other arrangement you can conceive of?
There isn’t a rational soul alive willing to make that argument - unless you want to. Go for it.
Formal recognition at the expense of others is promoting it, celebrating it, and certainly incentivizing it. That is the entire point of marriage, and always has been throughout history.
To your second point, it’s clear you have put zero thought into the entire enterprise - of course it affects people outside the people getting married. If you were right, we would have never bothered creating and maintaining this as a public institution.
On that note, what is your explanation as to why we have marriage in the first place? Not monogamous relationships, but marriage?
I know who! The straw man you just created.
I am not a libertarian or an anarchist idiot - and I have never argued from that position. I do not object to some level of “social engineering” - particularly as it pertains to certain, fundamental public morality laws. Say, for example, marriage and public nudity.