The Stupid Thread 2 (Part 1)

[Drew1411]

@Sloth

I believe the state has no more pressing interest in gay coupling than it does in fishing buddies. Or, in consenting 20 person poly-partnered non-romantic/sexual arrangements

So the state only cares about people who can reproduce?

[Sloth]

When the state makes a positive action it should be able to demonstrate it is doing so because of some fundamental and critical impact .

[Drew1411]

@Sloth

I simply don’t care.

This is clear. I do happen to care about other people that don’t share my same values.

[Sloth]

I do too. But I don’t care about every aspect of their lives.

Besides, so? Is there some moral obligation that requires we do?

[anon50325502]

@pfury

@Basement_Gainz

Women should have to die and get mamed against their will too.

This is why I think including women will kill the draft. Society has never really cared about sending young men off to die in someone else’s war.

But if you can slap a pretty low 20s mother up there with an obituary no pol that voted for the war will be seeing a reelection.

No way bro, EQUALITY!!!

[Drew1411]

@Sloth

When the state makes a positive action it should be able to demonstrate it is doing so because of some fundamental and critical impact .

Recognizing the rights of couples who have been living a married life. There are tax benefits and other complications like adopting, death rights and other things that have a fundamental impact on same sex couples. Seems to have a good impact to me. Not sure on the down sides

[Sloth]

Vital impact on society.

[Drew1411]

@Sloth

Besides, so? Is there some moral obligation that requires we do?

I think it’s important to try and recognize if we are applying laws unequally, yes.

[Sloth]

@Drew1411

I think it’s important to try and recognize if we are applying laws unequally, yes.

Ok. Is there some moral obligation to apply laws equally to vastly unequal things?

[Drew1411]

@Sloth

unequal things?

Like people of different skin color? Or different genders? Yes, the Supreme Court has come out very clear on this

[Sloth]

The supreme court can change. I mean it existed during slavery, too. We aren’t talking about the conservation of matter here. I asked if I have some moral obligation above myself I am supposed to defer to?

[Drew1411]

@Sloth

I asked if I have some moral obligation above myself I am supposed to defer to?

And this is where we get into religious nonsense. I’m out, have a good one.

[Sloth]

And what is the equivalency between skin color and gay marriage, anyways?

Do we have to be open to dating all genders, like skin colors, in order to not be a bigot these days?

Is saying “I won’t date men” (as a man) now equivalent to “I won’t date black women?”

[Sloth]

But not on my part. I don’t claim I am morally obligated to support state recognized gay marriage. So, if you don’t either, we can both agree I am not and move on.

@Drew1411

And this is where we get into religious nonsense. I’m out, have a good one.

Have a good one.

[H_factor]

@Sloth

Vital impact on society.

The impact on society of letting children with severe mental disabilities live is largely a net negative correct? In terms of money it takes to take care of them, resources they take up, etc. Let’s throw in that they can’t reproduce or we wouldn’t want them to reproduce. What is the point of having them alive?

The rest of your arguments don’t hold up. Gay marriage doesn’t have an impact on straight people having sex. My wife and I had a kid after gay marriage was legalized. Playing some hypothetical game like “you know if straight people didn’t fuck we’d cease to exist” is pointless and bringing it up makes no sense. Are loving couples out saying “we’d love to have a kid but you know those two girls in Seattle can get married now so what’s the point?”

I have a good friend who’s wife can’t get pregnant. Should their marriage be forced to end? Again it has absolutely no effect on my marriage. A gay couple in New York has no effect on my marriage.

As for not carrying about every aspect of their lives you REALLY care about them being married? I mean what exactly has changed for you since gay marriage was legalized? Is it hurting your marriage that two girls love each other and the Supreme Court said it was ok if they got married?

[anon50325502]

Lol, I’m not even mad at how terrible the face turned out, ha!

[loppar]

Carl Bildt, the ex-PM of Sweden is throwing some serious shade at Bernie. I guess Bernie will now stop praising nonexistent “Nordic socialism”?

Carl Bildt

EDIT: Holy crap, the video is amazing. It appears that his stance in 1988 was that Soviet Union was a-ok because they had a dedicated “puppeteer area” in the theater in Yaroslavl. Seriously.

[Sloth]

There is simply no vital reason to support it. They have no inherent right to it. And, there is no moral obligation on me to support it. Details in previous posts. Trying to turn the thread back over now to other things.

[pfury]

@Sloth

They have no inherent right to it.

LOLOL I had to. Your choice of words was too perfect.

Obergefell v. Hodges

which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[H_factor]

@Sloth

There is simply no vital reason to support it. They have no inherent right to it. And, there is no moral obligation on me to support it. Details in previous posts. Trying to turn the thread back over now to other things.

What inherent right do I have to it simply because I’m straight? I don’t think anyone said you have a moral obligation to support it. But you haven’t came close to giving a rational reason for it not to exist. It harms you in no way.