Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[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]

It’s not a logical fallacy it’s a fundamental question - should morality constrain any sexual relationships? If so, which ones?

62

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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.[/quote]

This is really stupid. I expect better from you. It’s one thing to be in favour of gay marriage; quite another to equate gay rights to slavery/segregation.

63

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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.[/quote]

This is really stupid. I expect better from you. It’s one thing to be in favour of gay marriage; quite another to equate gay rights to slavery/segregation.
[/quote]

First of all I NEVER equated the two. YOU wrote this:
“How have they disenfranchised them when they never had any such “right” to begin with?”
And I responded with this:
Blacks never had the right to be considered people until the Government decided that, “wait a minute, they ARE people!”. I’d say they were pretty fucking disenfranchised…"

I brought it up to use it as an example of disenfranchisement when a right never existed in the first place. No where in my post did I EQUATE the civil rights struggle with gay rights. I stated that in my reply to him.

But then FN does a liberal passive aggressive drive by comment and pulled the race card. So I gave him a piece of my mind about my thoughts on that tactic. For the record I DID NOT and I DO NOT equate gay rights to civil rights. I DID challenge the fact that he put the gay rights “struggle” in quotes while he mentioned blacks being tortured and killed because homosexuals certainly HAVE been tortured and killed and just because he is a “minority” doesn’t mean he gets to dismiss outright the struggles of and legitimate crimes committed against other groups of disenfranchised people.

64

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The jerkoff who couldn’t afford the adjustable rate mortgage, yet still signed it, average 55 year old, certainly plays part in the blame. [/quote]

You and I both know the average guy doesn’t understand even basic financial issues let alone a mortgage note. There are people on here that clearly can’t read a simple basic tax bracket. That is why we have jobs and that is why bankers have jobs.

I’m not absolving anyone here, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say a lot of people were taking advantage of by modern day snake oil salesmen.

[quote]
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. [/quote]
I’m not trying to pin the financial crisis on anyone. I’m specifically talking about fraudulent activities proven to have occurred.

And that is my point. Why isn’t fraud on the banker or CEO or Board on them? Why is that treated any different?

65

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Start a task force then?[/quote]

If the law was evenly applied you shouldn’t need a task force. Right? I mean, I guess we could, but I’d rather not create yet another task force. From what I understand Bush created one and Obama created a new one to replace it.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Agree

[quote]
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]

Agree and I never contented this was solely a race issue. I think if anything race play a minor role in a minority of situations.

66

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

And that is my point. Why isn’t fraud on the banker or CEO or Board on them? Why is that treated any different? [/quote]

Because you can’t narrow it down to an individual.

I mean, by all means, try. Find a handful of individuals you think should go to prison for the FC, and lay your facts and evidence out.

67

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

The fallacy of your argument is that nobody is advocating for intra-family marriage.
[/quote]

No, you’re using an appeal to tradition just as much as anyone.

You’re dodging his question, and rightfully so, because you can’t answer it. Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument, but legally, you can use the same justification to allow or deny both types of government recognized marriage. You just, because you’re rational, understand that we shouldn’t allow parent/child marriages.

In fact, the tax savings I could get people if they were allowed to marry their children are mind boggling. But no, we shouldn’t recognize those marriages. Why? Because it’s wrong.

68

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I think you’re missing the point he was trying to make. Maybe I’m wrong.

I believe all he is saying is:

Both situations are a situation where they each deserve their own place in American history, and (once the effort is done) a celebration of the true freedom our founding principles were intended to encapsulate.

To compare the two, is to cheapen both, by virtue taking away from one to feed the other. They don’t need to be compared to be valid, and shouldn’t be compared as they both deserve their own stage in history, not a shared one.

And I’m pretty sure he only brought up his minority status in order to avoid people calling him a racist for having his opinion.

69

[quote]angry chicken 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]

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’…[/quote]

Fair enough, but there are people out there that would prefer the above to losing their fortune.

70

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I think you’re missing the point he was trying to make. Maybe I’m wrong.

I believe all he is saying is:

Both situations are a situation where they each deserve their own place in American history, and (once the effort is done) a celebration of the true freedom our founding principles were intended to encapsulate.

To compare the two, is to cheapen both, by virtue taking away from one to feed the other. They don’t need to be compared to be valid, and shouldn’t be compared as they both deserve their own stage in history, not a shared one.

And I’m pretty sure he only brought up his minority status in order to avoid people calling him a racist for having his opinion. [/quote]

The only problem is that nobody in the thread had compared the two when he brought it up. So AC was correct in calling it a passive-aggressive drive-by.

Mentioning the fact that marriage rights are intertwined with civil rights of women and minorities does not constitute a comparison.

71

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

The only problem is that nobody in the thread had compared the two when he brought it up. So AC was correct in calling it a passive-aggressive drive-by.[/quote]

Not really, IMO. Drive-by? Sure. But to think this thread is limited to what was previously mentioned is silly, as if that was a rule, no threads would ever start.

First off, marriage isn’t a right. Getting married is exercising a right. Important difference. Secondly, just because no one in this thread may have mentioned it, doesn’t mean the comparison doesn’t happen, and very often, in the outside world.

Not sure why either of you take exception to the observation really. It seems like a silly thing to get hung up on.

72

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

The fallacy of your argument is that nobody is advocating for intra-family marriage.
[/quote]

No, you’re using an appeal to tradition just as much as anyone.

You’re dodging his question, and rightfully so, because you can’t answer it. Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument, but legally, you can use the same justification to allow or deny both types of government recognized marriage. You just, because you’re rational, understand that we shouldn’t allow parent/child marriages.

In fact, the tax savings I could get people if they were allowed to marry their children are mind boggling. But no, we shouldn’t recognize those marriages. Why? Because it’s wrong. [/quote]

I don’t see the slippery slope, because people are not clamoring for the boundary lines of marriage to be removed, nor is moving that line likely to lead to its removal.

The line is already drawn. We have a definition of marriage. We’re moving the line to include homosexual couples, but not family members. There’s the line right there. Nobody is advocating for no lines at all.

Being able to extrapolate the reasoning we are using to justify gay marriages and then run with it to all manner of ridiculous conclusions doesn’t really prove much at all.

Society is moving towards acceptance of gays, up to and including marriage. There used to be laws outlawing the actual act of gay sex. Incest did not suddenly become acceptable when those laws were changed.

Society is not moving toward acceptance of incest or marrying one’s dog or a piece of fruit. It is therefore not worth discussing, even if the flimsy thread of “both are not heterosexual marriage arrangements” holds them together. Because that is the only connection homosexuality and incest have. They are not connected by what they are, but by what they are not. A flimsy thread indeed.

Even if the worst-case scenario floating around in NorCal and SM’s head comes to pass, and our legislators and judiciary concluded that we have to allow man/dog marriages if we allow man/man marriages, what impact would that have on society, other than providing a lot of late-night joke material?

At any rate, I’m bowing out of this discussion. Someone else said it, but the ship has sailed. It is little more than a wedge issue that the right should just drop and move on, much like gun control on the left. Bigger fish to fry.

73

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

I don’t see the slippery slope, because people are not clamoring for the boundary lines of marriage to be removed, nor is moving that line likely to lead to its removal.

The line is already drawn. We have a definition of marriage. We’re moving the line to include homosexual couples, but not family members. There’s the line right there. Nobody is advocating for no lines at all.

Being able to extrapolate the reasoning we are using to justify gay marriages and then run with it to all manner of ridiculous conclusions doesn’t really prove much at all.

Society is moving towards acceptance of gays, up to and including marriage. There used to be laws outlawing the actual act of gay sex. Incest did not suddenly become acceptable when those laws were changed.

Society is not moving toward acceptance of incest or marrying one’s dog or a piece of fruit. It is therefore not worth discussing, even if the flimsy thread of “both are not heterosexual marriage arrangements” holds them together. Because that is the only connection homosexuality and incest have. They are not connected by what they are, but by what they are not. A flimsy thread indeed.

Even if the worst-case scenario floating around in NorCal and SM’s head comes to pass, and our legislators and judiciary concluded that we have to allow man/dog marriages if we allow man/man marriages, what impact would that have on society, other than providing a lot of late-night joke material?

At any rate, I’m bowing out of this discussion. Someone else said it, but the ship has sailed. It is little more than a wedge issue that the right should just drop and move on, much like gun control on the left. Bigger fish to fry.[/quote]

Let’s take your post, move it back in time 60 years. Change same-sex marriage and acceptance of gays with inter-racial marriage. And then swap incest with homosexual relationships…

Now do you see the slippery slope.

All NorCal is asking is to define your line in the sand, and why it’s there. I can do it, and we largely agree on the issue of same-sex marriage. Why won’t you?

74

[quote] twojarslave wrote:

Society is not moving toward acceptance of incest or marrying one’s dog or a piece of fruit.

[/quote]

http://www.patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

Slippery slope arguments aside, there is still a very important question: should morality constrain any sexual behaviours? Y/N? If so, which ones and why?

75

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

And that is my point. Why isn’t fraud on the banker or CEO or Board on them? Why is that treated any different? [/quote]

Because you can’t narrow it down to an individual.

I mean, by all means, try. Find a handful of individuals you think should go to prison for the FC, and lay your facts and evidence out. [/quote]

It would be extremely difficult for me to find anything, however, I bet the DOJ could. They’d have to avoid investigating guys like Roger Clemens, but I think they could do it. There’s always a paper trail.

Let me ask you this Beans, should Lois Lerner be investigated/brought before Congress for what went down at the IRS?

76

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken 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]

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’…[/quote]

Fair enough, but there are people out there that would prefer the above to losing their fortune. [/quote]

I’ve seen how “white collar” types fare in prison. They usually end up wearing lipstick and crying themselves to sleep every night. After that they end up in the protective custody wing cuz they couldn’t make it in gen pop.

77

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Let me ask you this Beans, should Lois Lerner be investigated/brought before Congress for what went down at the IRS? [/quote]

Yes, because:

  1. She is clearly involved, and directed the actions
  2. This instance is relatively recent and she presided over enough of the inputs to make the case she can be held accountable.

The difference is, who do you arrest for signing the mortgages and defaulting? Who do you arrest for decades of government programs that slammed home ownership down people’s throats? Who do you arrest for monetary policy that lead to insanely cheap money? Who do you arrest for buying the subordinated debt for all those years creating the market?

Who do you arrest at Fannie & Freddie?
Who do you arrest at AIG?
Who do you arrest at Dept Treasury? And how many administrations do you go back?
Who do you arrest at the Fed? And how far back?
Who do you arrest from LBJ’s & FDR’s cabinet? What about Reagan’s and Clinton’s?
When Obama’s Treasury Secretary worked with Larry Summers to exasperate the situation under Clinton, who do you arrest once they work for Obama?
Does Paulson get some time?
What about members of Congress that pushed for TARP? (Both sides btw.)

Madoff was a clear and excellent example of what happens when it is a firm doing something wrong. Once you run into a systemic problem, that spans damn near a century… Kind of have to settle for billions of dollars in fines.

My point isn’t that they shouldn’t be punished, or the issue should be ignored. I hated TARP as much as the next guy, and hate cronyism. My point is you can’t realistically narrow the situation down.

78

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I think you’re missing the point he was trying to make. Maybe I’m wrong.

I believe all he is saying is:

Both situations are a situation where they each deserve their own place in American history, and (once the effort is done) a celebration of the true freedom our founding principles were intended to encapsulate.

To compare the two, is to cheapen both, by virtue taking away from one to feed the other. They don’t need to be compared to be valid, and shouldn’t be compared as they both deserve their own stage in history, not a shared one.

And I’m pretty sure he only brought up his minority status in order to avoid people calling him a racist for having his opinion. [/quote]

Here’s what I wrote up there to address the issue you brought up:

First of all I NEVER equated the two. YOU wrote this:
“How have they disenfranchised them when they never had any such “right” to begin with?”
And I responded with this:
“Blacks never had the right to be considered people until the Government decided that, “wait a minute, they ARE people!”. I’d say they were pretty fucking disenfranchised…”

I brought it up to use it as an example of disenfranchisement when a right never existed in the first place. No where in my post did I EQUATE the civil rights struggle with gay rights. I stated that in my reply to him.

He took what I wrote COMPLETELY out of context and then made a passive aggressive drive by, race baiting general comment.

79

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I think you’re missing the point he was trying to make. Maybe I’m wrong.

I believe all he is saying is:

Both situations are a situation where they each deserve their own place in American history, and (once the effort is done) a celebration of the true freedom our founding principles were intended to encapsulate.

To compare the two, is to cheapen both, by virtue taking away from one to feed the other. They don’t need to be compared to be valid, and shouldn’t be compared as they both deserve their own stage in history, not a shared one.

And I’m pretty sure he only brought up his minority status in order to avoid people calling him a racist for having his opinion. [/quote]

Here’s what I wrote up there to address the issue you brought up:

First of all I NEVER equated the two. YOU wrote this:
“How have they disenfranchised them when they never had any such “right” to begin with?”
And I responded with this:
“Blacks never had the right to be considered people until the Government decided that, “wait a minute, they ARE people!”. I’d say they were pretty fucking disenfranchised…”

I brought it up to use it as an example of disenfranchisement when a right never existed in the first place. No where in my post did I EQUATE the civil rights struggle with gay rights. I stated that in my reply to him.

He took what I wrote COMPLETELY out of context and then made a passive aggressive drive by, race baiting general comment.[/quote]

Well, I missed where he was directing it towards you. Which would explain why we took the comment differently then.

But, just because you didn’t make a comparison doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, all the damn time, outside this thread.

80

Oh I agree, it does happen all the time. But if you read what I actually wrote, I DID NOT make that comparison at all. Which is why I interpreted what he wrote as a drive by comment. Big pet peeve of mine. I have no problem defending or conceding defeat of any point that I make. But I don’t like having words put in my mouth.