[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Then stop starting threads you will know will degenerate into the same old arguments.[/quote]
No, these aren’t the same old arguments. Gay marriage advocates generally refuse to address the consequences raised by their Progress arguments. I simply narrowed the issue to get some straight answers, which I have.
This will, no doubt, keep me up all night questioning myself. I am already tearing up a little.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
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]
I know social issues are hot button issues - my point is that Left-liberals don’t have much to say anything meaningful on threads about fiscal matters.
You sure as hell don’t.
So, if we want a debate, we have to raise topics Left-liberals are willing to weigh on.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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?
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.
[/quote]
Don’t put words in my mouth- I didn’t say “any other arrangement.” What I said was that I don’t think that two men or two women would do a worse job raising a kid than a man and a woman. I know some horrific biological parents… so while it might not be the ideal, I would rather see a kid in the hands of two loving people that will encourage and support a kid… than a heroin addict and a drunk living in the trailer park who are the biological parents.
At the expense of others? What others? Who?
As an official recognition, I’d guess its got a basis in the monotheistic religions, which carried over into “tax benefits” and other monetary rewards in this country at least.
In America I don’t see it as anything more than a legally binding agreement, if you set aside the religious implications many have. And that being said, I don’t see a reason that the legally binding agreement would be any different if you got two dicks in the relationship.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.
I know social issues are hot button issues - my point is that Left-liberals don’t have much to say anything meaningful on threads about fiscal matters.
You sure as hell don’t.
So, if we want a debate, we have to raise topics Left-liberals are willing to weigh on.[/quote]
I have never professed that I know everything about economics. Whatever I know I’ve taught myself. I don’t see the need to argue something that I don’t know that well, especially when I could, for fuck’s sake, just go find a liberal economist that agrees with what I want them to and copy and paste.
And being as I’m one of the only liberals on the board, it kind of leaves us at a disadvantage doesn’t it? Hspder, when he posted here, was pretty damn good at arguing economics from the liberal point.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
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]
You repeated yourself saying that allowing gay marriages will lead to other alternative marriages.
If half the population consisted of people wanting alternative marriages, then you might have an argument, but that isn’t the case.
So as it is, those small numbers that might want to get married, as your argument suggests, won’t effect you or society.
Get over yourself.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Don’t put words in my mouth- I didn’t say “any other arrangement.” What I said was that I don’t think that two men or two women would do a worse job raising a kid than a man and a woman. [/quote]
That isn’t the question - consistently, what arrangement would be best for the children?
Irrelevant to the larger issue.
You are very confused. The issue isn’t based on exceptions, it is based on the rule. Which arrangement is best? Start there.
There will always be terrible biological parents. That isn’t the issue.
At the expense of other relationships, Einstein - that is what the whole thing is about. We set the union of a man and woman aside, give it recognition and give it all kinds of tangible goodies - and other relationships don’t get the same.
Marriage privileges one relationship over others.
Precisely - “you’d guess” - which means you don’t know and never bothered to learn.
I[quote]n America I don’t see it as anything more than a legally binding agreement, if you set aside the religious implications many have. And that being said, I don’t see a reason that the legally binding agreement would be any different if you got two dicks in the relationship.
[/quote]
Precisely why you have it wrong - it isn’t, and never has been, some purely contractual relationship. Marriage, again, is not an End in and of itself. We aren’t rewarding two people merely because they happen to “contract” with one another - it is a Means: we are rewarding them because it promotes a good outside of their own agreement between one another, an End (child ordering and raising, sexual discipline among men, etc.).
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I have never professed that I know everything about economics. Whatever I know I’ve taught myself. I don’t see the need to argue something that I don’t know that well, especially when I could, for fuck’s sake, just go find a liberal economist that agrees with what I want them to and copy and paste.
And being as I’m one of the only liberals on the board, it kind of leaves us at a disadvantage doesn’t it? Hspder, when he posted here, was pretty damn good at arguing economics from the liberal point. [/quote]
We don’t disagree - the point was we start threads on topics we know we might actually get a Left-liberal comment on. No more, no less. Other topics are dead-ends.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
You repeated yourself saying that allowing gay marriages will lead to other alternative marriages.
If half the population consisted of people wanting alternative marriages, then you might have an argument, but that isn’t the case.
So as it is, those small numbers that might want to get married, as your argument suggests, won’t effect you or society.
Get over yourself.[/quote]
Gay marriages would lead to alternative marriages, and the question then becomes how does a government recognize them, even if they are small in number? If a polyamorist is entitled to be married, who gets the Social Security? Who gets child custody in a divorce? How do they file their taxes under the marriage exceptions? Any line the government picks to govern will be arbitrary.
Unmanageable - and would lead to the privatization of marriage.
And, yes, all this would “effect”[sic] society. I don’t to get over myself - I just need somebody who can form a coherent counterargument. Do you know anyone?
Hey look another pissing match, I’m in. Got forlife spewing the same unproved babble about his future man child being perfect because he butt fucks a man. I’m sure a child would grow up great with two daddies, one saying he better grow up perfect mentally or he’s going to kick his ass because science says it’s true. Got FI talking about marrying his dog, because no one should care about what their society is made up of. Got foreigners putting their two cents into something that is none of their business what the hell goes on in this country, yet no one is actually talking about poly-marriage.
I personally think poly-marriage is fine as long as it is between a man and his wife. Keep your boyfriends and girlfriends out of my marriage institute. However, being in the United States, we are likely not ready for such change.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gay marriages would lead to alternative marriages, and the question then becomes how does a government recognize them, even if they are small in number? If a polyamorist is entitled to be married, who gets the Social Security? Who gets child custody in a divorce? How do they file their taxes under the marriage exceptions? Any line the government picks to govern will be arbitrary.
Unmanageable - and would lead to the privatization of marriage.
[/quote]
You answered your own question. And I’m not sure why this is such a bad thing if it were to happen. It doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of those getting married would be heterosexuals, still living in the “traditional” sense of marriage.
Sorry, I just don’t see how this is going to ruin traditional marriage and/or society any more than people, living in heterosexual marriages, already have.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Dustin wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.
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]
Yep, the rest is all hot air.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
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]
lol. Says the man (tool) who couldn’t even follow my argument on the econ thread. Let’s start another conversation about how it’s “all Obama’s fault!!1!!” or perhaps we can “grade him” a “complete failure” again…those threads are always so productive and intellectually stimulating!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Don’t put words in my mouth- I didn’t say “any other arrangement.” What I said was that I don’t think that two men or two women would do a worse job raising a kid than a man and a woman.
That isn’t the question - consistently, what arrangement would be best for the children?
[/quote]
Ideally, I would say the biological parents, yes. But we never deal in the ideal, because that’s not what happens in real life. The best arrangement would be for two level headed and loving parents to raise kid- and given that this world is never perfect, I’d say that sex of the parents is secondary to how much they love the kid.
Very relevant, when you consider the fact that you’re using biological parents as something of a test model.
And I’m saying that the rule is not defined by bloodlines, the rule is defined by the love for a child.
So… married people won’t feel as special anymore? Is that what the problem is? Should there be a golden cookie that you get if you’re married and straight, to give you that little bit of love you’re not feeling from the government?
Once again, married people will feel the same whether or not gays can marry. They will feel the same about each other whether two guys can marry their three wives in Arkansas. To say that people in other parts of the country that they’ve never met will have any affect on a married couple who feel passionately for one another is ludicrous.
Then enlighten me douche, and tell me what it has to do with this argument.
[quote]
In America I don’t see it as anything more than a legally binding agreement, if you set aside the religious implications many have. And that being said, I don’t see a reason that the legally binding agreement would be any different if you got two dicks in the relationship.
Precisely why you have it wrong - it isn’t, and never has been, some purely contractual relationship. Marriage, again, is not an End in and of itself. We aren’t rewarding two people merely because they happen to “contract” with one another - it is a Means: we are rewarding them because it promotes a good outside of their own agreement between one another, an End (child ordering and raising, sexual discipline among men, etc.).[/quote]
TO YOU. To you it’s the means to raising children, to you it promotes good. That’s it.
It’s a highly personalized issue, and for you to try and apply these broad strokes, as in marriage is only a means to having kids, is asinine.
If that’s what it means to you- then go the fuck for it. But that’s not everyone’s definition, and your definition sure as shit shouldn’t define everyone else’s.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
At the expense of other relationships, Einstein - that is what the whole thing is about. We set the union of a man and woman aside, give it recognition and give it all kinds of tangible goodies - and other relationships don’t get the same.
[/quote]
Government approved marriages are just another form of welfare. You the think the welfare junkie would respond positively to a bill expanding welfare if he knew it would decrease his welfare benefits?
No one likes others putting their hands in the governement honey jar that they claim.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
lol. Says the man (tool) who couldn’t even follow my argument on the econ thread. Let’s start another conversation about how it’s “all Obama’s fault!!1!!” or perhaps we can “grade him” a “complete failure” again…those threads are always so productive and intellectually stimulating! [/quote]
Laughable - you weren’t making an argument, you were cut and pasting primers on “how a stimulus works”. I understood “how a stimulus works” long before you started sucking your parents’ money into your worthless education.
Stop flattering yourself - you didn’t make an argument. And, by the way, I am happy to tee up a conversation about the current status of the stimulus…and unemployment, and a weak GDP, and the price of our issued debt - just say when.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
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.
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. [/quote]
Well, inumerable pages have been devoted to this. I agree that the arguments fall flat. But they have still been made.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
lol. Says the man (tool) who couldn’t even follow my argument on the econ thread. Let’s start another conversation about how it’s “all Obama’s fault!!1!!” or perhaps we can “grade him” a “complete failure” again…those threads are always so productive and intellectually stimulating!
Laughable - you weren’t making an argument, you were cut and pasting primers on “how a stimulus works”. I understood “how a stimulus works” long before you started sucking your parents’ money into your worthless education. [/quote]
Nope, I started with a pretty basic argument. Others clarified it. You missed it again and again. I figured some 101 might come in handy…and you still didn’t figure it out. You obviously were (are) missing some basics. Apparently you still don’t know what I was saying. But that’s okay. I’m sure you feel good about yourself by closing your eyes and ears.
btw, I like the “parentls money/education” stuff. You’re again so completely wrong it’s hilarious. Maybe I can try too? Let me guess, you were a “very” good student at a third tier school, right?
Oh, I’m pretty sure I know just how that conversation would go: “It’s all obama’s fault!!!11!!!” right? “The economy would have straightened itself out, if not for those damn liberals! And btw, it was he damn liberal’s fault the economy was bad too. I’ll defend this with page after page of BS.” right? If you were actually interested in a discussion of economics, we could talk. But you either lack the basics or the capacity to put down your biases. I used to think the later, but now I’m pretty sure it’s the former.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Nope, I started with a pretty basic argument. Others clarified it. You missed it again and again. I figured some 101 might come in handy…and you still didn’t figure it out. You obviously were (are) missing some basics. Apparently you still don’t know what I was saying. But that’s okay. I’m sure you feel good about yourself by closing your eyes and ears.[/quote]
Hilarious. You started trying to defend the stimulus without knowing anything about it, got pressed with questions you couldn’t answer, and started the histrionics in lieu of an argument.
Here is a hint - I supported a stimulus packages, Einstein, just not the non-stimulus package that Obama sub-contracted out to the partisan, unserious Nancy Pelosi without a blink.
My criticism is and always has been - it was never a stimulus package, it was merely a partisan spending package. More Democrats voted against than Republicans voted for it, and now economists are lining up to denounce it.
Well, it is Obama’s fault for refusing to put Pelosi on a leash. And, yes, the economy would have straightened istelf out - President Obama even said so himself. The stimulus package was not to “fix” the economy, but ratehr to mitigate the downturn until the economy readjusted.
Obama’s package was never mehcanically designed to “stimulate” very much - how do we know? Most of the spending is scheduled to occur when Obama’s own numbers show the economy to be growing/ A stimulus isn’t needed if the economy is growing, genius.
It was simply an appropriations bill marketed as an “emergency spending” package to deal with a sick economy, because such a spending bill otherwise would have never been passed. It was dishonest politics, and we see the wages of this brand of politics right now, as support for it - as well as confidence in Obama’s ability to manage economic affairs - plummets.
You don’t have an argument. You didn’t then. You are an ankle-biting terrier at best who wants to inject partisan stupidity into every thread. Not my problem to fix, and your posts are better skipped, lest I become dumber while reading them.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Irish,
I’m not surprised by your attitude and I think that type of thinking is probably more popular among your age group than mine. What you and many in your generation fail to realize is that just about everything effects everything else eventually. It’s a matter of what sort of society that you want to live in isn’t it? What happened to something called “the greater good” of society?
Society can sanction all sorts of evils (including homosexuals getting married) instead of asking “how does that effect my life” at this moment, what you should be asking is how does that improve society and the greater good in the long term? Eventually anything that does not help society could ultimately harm it.
It was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?
Polygamy?
Incestuous marriage?
A person marrying their television sets.
Adult/child marriages.
Certainly the sky will not fall if homosexuals are allowed to marry it never happens that way does it? It’s simply one more step in the wrong direction which will absolutely lead to other even more perverse groups asking, no demanding that same right. How foolish to think that the the institution of marriage, once tampered with will never be changed again? All of this will in fact effect you your future children and all of society as it continues to chisle away at the basic family structure which has served mankind so very well for the past 5000 years.
The greater good is not a very popular. It doesn’t have it’s own lobby group and asks nothing from the government. However, I assure you if we continue to ignore it we as a society will suffer a great deal of damage as a result.
You do realise that the “instituion of marriage” has been tampered with before right? I haven’t seen any threads arguing for the banning of divorces though.[/quote]
Couples have always had the desire and means to part that’s nothing new.
[quote]it was not that long ago that homosexuals were simply asking for tolerance? Now they demand marriage. Funny how one thing leads to another and the slippery slope argument is proven true time and again. What about the following should this be accepted too?
A person marrying their dog?
A dog can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.[/quote]
Don’t be foolish enough to frame your entire argument around the debate that rages today. A new debate can begin with it’s premise rooted in the fact that a man can do with his own property what he likes and that may include marriage.
[quote]Polygamy?
Already allowed in many parts of the world, and by many religions (how many wives did King Solomon have?). As long as there is no coersion or abuse, I don’t see why this is so bad.[/quote]
As long as the knife thrower doesn’t hit the person I don’t anything wrong with that either. YIKES.
[quote]Incestuous marriage?
I’m not sure why someone would want to do this,[/quote]
Most of the country still doesn’t quite get why one man would want to marry another man, so I guess we have to look beyond our personal preferences.
[quote]A person marrying their television sets.
A television can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.[/quote]
Remember that personal property argument? Okay, enough said.
[quote]Adult/child marriages.
A child can’t enter a legal contract so this won’t ever be an issue.[/quote]
But it will be an issue eventually. NAMBLA is working on it as we speak. All they have to do is get the legal age of consent lowered and POOF, kids will be able to marry adults.
I think you need to look at the facts. There are very, very few “stable gay relationships”. In fact one study has shown that even those gays who claim to be in a stable relationship have occasional sex outside of that relationship.
The point of the list of non-traditional marriages was show people that once the boundary lines are moved they can be moved again and again and it matters not what the perverse relationship is.
[quote]John S. wrote:
OBoile wrote:
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.
Obvious answer: as far as the law is concerned, it is a government issue and not a religious one.
I would say it is a religious one. Marriage should have nothing to do with the government. Government has no right getting involved in peoples decisions like this. We need to go back to the basics.
Maybe I will start my own thread on this.[/quote]
You would be wrong. We are discussing laws made by the government which is at least supposed to be seperate from religion.
If you wish to make laws based on religion, then which religion will you choose? Will you ban ceremonies from other religions (for instance, a Hindu ceremony would certainly be in violation of one of the ten commandments so it is every bit as much a sin as gay marriage as far as Christianity is concerned).
If you are going to discuss religion, I suggest you do go ahead and make another thread.