The Glade 4.0

Wait... they're not?

So my two homosexual friends can go get married to each other?

Oh wait... they can't.

Cause, y'know. Discrimination.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Similarly, until we're financially ready to afford kids and raise them in what I consider to be an appropriate manner, I'm going to use what I consider to be the most consistently effective birth control.

And you'd be amazed at how ineffective the pill is in most real-world situations.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

And so far, no one in this thread has said that the Gov't taking money and giving it to others is compassionate.

People have made remarks about compassion based on tone and manners, sure.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

So, do you only disagree with the abortion part of Planned Parenthood?

If it weren't for "big pharma" and those patents, that inhaler wouldn't exist.

Oh, and more regulations don't help.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You're not that bright are you?


Answer these questions for me in a yes or no fashion ok? Humor me.


Can Bob who is gay and Steve who is gay get married to each other?
Can Rick who is not gay and Joe who is not gay get married to each other?
Can Bob who is gay and Joe who is not gay get married to each other?

Can Bob who is gay and Linda who is gay get married to each other?
Can Rick who is not gay and Lisa who is not gay get married to each other?
Can Sally who is gay and Joe who is not gay get married to each other?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

So far, no one has said people they have.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No, and therein lies the issue.
Why would Rick and Joe get married?
Same for Bob and Joe.

Yes, but why would they?
Yes, as that is the current status quo.
Yes, again, but why would they?

Its shocking the intellectual dishonesty you have to get up to to justify your bigoted viewpoint. Actually, no, it isn't. Its kinda expected by now.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Why would X and Y get married? Ummm, for all the reasons people are saying it's discriminatory for any two people. If it's only about love, then you don't need The State to sanction it.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I’ve done nothing bigoted *******. I’ve just punched a hole in your logic and you don’t like it. Fact is, a gay man can get married just like a straight man. Who cares the reason, people get married for tons of reasons, not all of them love or whatever. Get back to me when you figure it all out. I know logic isn't your strong suit.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Its not. Its about the few hundred family rights and protections that come along with "marriage".

Which go along with the state sanctioning it.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Then you answered your own question.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You've answered a question that wasn't even asked. And punched holes in nothing but air good sir.

A gay man (or woman) cannot legally get married to the person that they choose as their spouse in the same way a straight couple can.

That is the discrimination. That is the bigotry.

Simply because of teh gay.

Noone is forcing you to have a gay marriage, simply to allow the government to recognize that there is a segment of the population that would like to have them. Much the same way that there was a segment of people that would like to have the same sorts of civil rights as... men. Or White People.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I haven't had enough coffee to follow this non sequitur properly.

I've answered my question by explaining that its about the state rather than religion?

I thought I was responding to Fox's strawman army.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Bzzzz wrong...like I said...get back to me when you figure it out.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

My point is, I bet there are people who don't care about the state sanctioning it, but still take that nice, fat tax cut from "the state" every year.

And, unlike Mus, I don't think there isn't a point to it. If they're sharing a household, raising kids, and legally want the benefits associated with it, I think there's a reason.

Hence, marriage, as a state sanctioned legal function, should not care about the sex or orientation of the people entering into it. It's people who want to legally and irrevocably pool their finances, have easy wills upon dying, have "kin" hospital and emergency privileges, raise children with a normal parental joint custody, etc.

Personally, I don't think there should be tax breaks for getting married or having kids, but that's just me. I'd prefer we get rid of marriage entirely as a legal construct, and grant "civil unions" all the current legal standing that "marriages" have. But practically, it would be easier to just make them all marriages, rather than changing every law relating to marital status on the books.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I'd be just fine with this.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Yeah, I understand your argument. I do. I really do.

Its just that you're arguing against something completely different.

On the basis of teh gay. Cause you fear it or something. I dunno why really.

You're arguing X, I'm arguing Y. The arguments don't coincide except for the fact that they're both about marriage.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

So why aren't you fine with gay marriage?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

No, it's not a non sequitur.

You asked, "Why would X and Y want to get married?".

Then you answered that, "Its about the few hundred family rights and protections that come along with "marriage".

i.e. You answered your own question.

While I'd argue that you aren't speaking about rights, but State sanctioned privileges that should be done away with as many turn into punitive measures against single people, any two people wishing to have the State sanction their relationship should be able to do so for any reason.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I assume it's for the same reasons that many homosexuals aren't fine with "civil unions" or any other name except marriage.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Fair enough.

But, since *married people* are loath to give up those rights and privileges then we need to expand the definition of "marriage" to be more inclusive rather than excluding those that are differently oriented.

If the definition of "civil unions" applied to all "marriages" equally no matter the orientation of those involved and "marriage" was strictly a non-recognized religious thing... that'd probably be best.

Since the likelihood of *that* happening approaches zero... one tends to work for the things that are actually feasible.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

To be fair, many "civil unions" are just "separate but equal" in that they're certainly separate... but far from equal.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Marriage debate again is boring.

NF: