Gay Marriage

[Grave_n_idle]

Let me steal from you for a second here:

Averagely smart people are neither good nor bad for the state, clever people are good for the state. Therefore, we should discriminate against anyone with an IQ under 150. It's a pretty simple concept.

Sound familiar?

Yes. The state often grants intelligent people benefits (e.g., merit-based college scholarships) not granted to average or less intelligent people. This makes perfect sense.

Glad you agree.

I'm smarter than you, so your 'kind' shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I know you agree, your arguments make it clear.

[Noveros Prime]

Of course. How in the world do expect to progress as a race if you do not expand. It's like signing your species' death warrant

Not all progress is good progress. Prohibitions was a progressive mandate. So is affirmative action. Both we could do without.

Pointless comment.

'Tradition' maintained the institution of slavery. It's hard to argue that only 'progressive' people think that is a tradition better left to history.

Not all traditions are good, but not all are bad, either.

What about the "traditional" medicine involving bleeding instead of antibiotics, or the "traditional" Ptolemaic cosmology that places the Earth at the center of the universe, or the "traditional" practice of burning "witches"? Do you agree with those traditions? Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it sane or reasonable. Many traditions are based on superstition and scientific ignorance.

You are conflating cultural tradition with scientific ignorance. The only item on your list that remotely qualifies is witch-burning, which I disagree with on the basis of Christian principle.

[Christian Democrats]

Gay relationships aren't restricted in the U.S.

Can gays marry? No, no they can't.

Thus gay relationships are restricted in the US.

Are members of the American LGBT community punished by the legal system for being gay? . . . no

There haven't been restrictions on gay relationships in the United States since 2003 (cf. Lawrence v. Texas).

[Polruan]

So because a 5 year old has a right to free education a 40 year old also does, purely because of the nebulous 'individual rights' concept?

Jesus fucking Christ don't you understand the goddamn English language? "Default" does not mean "permanent and immutable." Incredible, just fucking incredible!

That's how it was being argued, like it's a precedent that all law must follow. Don't see what you've got sand in your vagina about.

[Noveros Prime]

'Women =/= property' is hardly an exclusively 'feminist' argument.

Indeed, but I have enough experience with feminists to know one when I see one. A shrieking harpy with a dried-up cunt like that? Obvious Jezebel reader.

[Grave_n_idle]

Equivocating "people" as a culture with "people" as a person. A shameful display of intellectual cowardice.

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.

People, collectively - are large groups of people, individually.

Are you arguing that we should have large, immobile and unadaptive 'culture' groups, that should be maintained even against the will of their people?

Of course it does, but that does not mean we should redefine our institutions to suit the polygamists and homosexuals. Again: they should adapt to ours.

Which is a different argument for a different thread.

In THIS thread, the impact is that 'tradition' is a ridiculous metric for marriage.

Equal rights implies equality.

Of rights. Only of rights.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm smarter than you

You don't know that.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Not all traditions are good, but not all are bad, either.

So we throw out all the bad and/or unfounded traditions and only keep the ones that work. Glad we agree.

You are conflating cultural tradition with scientific ignorance.

No I'm not. You're just playing the No True Scotsman game. "Oh, because it was the result of scientific ignorance, those traditional practices and ideas don't count."

[Archem States]

Of course. How in the world do expect to progress as a race if you do not expand. It's like signing your species' death warrant

Not all progress is good progress. Prohibitions was a progressive mandate. So is affirmative action. Both we could do without.


All progress is good progress. Even if it leads to unfavourable results, you learn from it. Build on your mistakes. Much like a child learning that fire burns when they put their hand in it for the first time (this is hypothetical before you start complaining).

[Cromarty]

Can gays marry? No, no they can't.

Thus gay relationships are restricted in the US.

Are members of the American LGBT community punished by the legal system for being gay? . . . no

There haven't been restrictions on gay relationships in the United States since 2003 (cf. Lawrence v. Texas).

And yet... I couldn't marry my chosen partner were I in most of the states.

[Dyakovo]

Can gays marry? No, no they can't.

Thus gay relationships are restricted in the US.

Are members of the American LGBT community punished by the legal system for being gay? . . . no

There haven't been restrictions on gay relationships in the United States since 2003 (cf. Lawrence v. Texas).

Not allowings gays to marry is, by definition, a restriction on their relationship…

[Grave_n_idle]

Not all traditions are good, but not all are bad, either.

No one is saying that they are.

The Constitution, for example - is a 'tradition' that is arguably one of the highpoints of America's history.

But tradition is still a poor argument for one-man-one-woman marriage.

[Archem States]

Can gays marry? No, no they can't.

Thus gay relationships are restricted in the US.

Are members of the American LGBT community punished by the legal system for being gay? . . . no

There haven't been restrictions on gay relationships in the United States since 2003 (cf. Lawrence v. Texas).

By not being allowed the same rights as straight couples they are effectively being punished. Like a child sent to his room for not obeying his parents.

[Noveros Prime]

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.

People, collectively - are large groups of people, individually.

Are you arguing that we should have large, immobile and unadaptive 'culture' groups, that should be maintained even against the will of their people?

Stop this pointless blathering. You equated an individual with a cultural group. It's nonsense. Tradition should be maintained.

Which is a different argument for a different thread.

In THIS thread, the impact is that 'tradition' is a ridiculous metric for marriage.

I don't think so. Also, I find most of the LGBT movement irritating, so I'm not inclined to acquiesce to them.

All progress is good progress. Even if it leads to unfavourable results, you learn from it. Build on your mistakes. Much like a child learning that fire burns when they put their hand in it for the first time (this is hypothetical before you start complaining).

Yet again: spoken like a true progressive. Certainly, if we kill a hundred million in the name of "progress," we can learn from our mistakes. Except that progressives don't seem to learn from their mistakes, and they seem eager to repeat them.

By not being allowed the same rights as straight couples they are effectively being punished. Like a child sent to his room for not obeying his parents.

By not allowing single people the same rights as married couples, singles are effectively being punished.

[Genivaria]

Not all traditions are good, but not all are bad, either.

No one is saying that they are.

The Constitution, for example - is a 'tradition' that is arguably one of the highpoints of America's history.

But tradition is still a poor argument for one-man-one-woman marriage.

If tradition was all that mattered then we'd be living under an absolute monarchy.

[Four-sided Triangles]

That's how it was being argued, like it's a precedent that all law must follow.

No it wasn't, which is why she included the idea of a burden of proof. That clearly indicates that it's a legal DEFAULT. You have the right to do x unless we can provide a clear reason why you don't. Thus, if you can't provide a reason, we, get this, "DEFAULT" to the DEFAULT POSITION that you are allowed to do x.

Don't see what you've got sand in your vagina about.

Nice. Do you think I'm a woman (hint: I'm not.), or do you just think that it's somehow clever to refer to men as women as if it's some kind of insult?

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm smarter than you

You don't know that.

Don't be upset, it's not that you're a lesser person for not being as smart as me. It's just that you shouldn't be allowed to marry like decent people, and god hates you.

[Archem States]

'Women =/= property' is hardly an exclusively 'feminist' argument.

Indeed, but I have enough experience with feminists to know one when I see one. A shrieking harpy with a dried-up cunt like that? Obvious Jezebel reader.

Have you ran out of decent arguments so now you have to resort to personal attacks. Very steriotypical ones at that. How childish. Trust a conservative get angry at a feminist.

[Polruan]

It's been said before - gay couples in fact have the exact same rights as straight couples. I can prove this: any granting of same-sex marriages would be granting the exact same new rights to straight people as it would be to gay people. To argue that there's some kind of active restriction in place is absurd.

No doubt I'm a terrible homophobe (lol) for saying this but eh.

[Archem States]

I'm smarter than you

You don't know that.

Dude, most of the thread is theoretical. Stop looking for cheap hits.

[Takaram]

It's been said before - gay couples in fact have the exact same rights as straight couples. I can prove this: any granting of same-sex marriages would be granting the exact same new rights to straight people as it would be to gay people. To argue that there's some kind of active restriction in place is absurd.

No doubt I'm a terrible homophobe (lol) for saying this but eh.

I don't want to marry a woman any more than a straight man wants to marry a man. Why should I be restricted from marry someone I want to marry and who wants to marry me just because we both have penises?

[Polruan]

No it wasn't, which is why she included the idea of a burden of proof. That clearly indicates that it's a legal DEFAULT. You have the right to do x unless we can provide a clear reason why you don't. Thus, if you can't provide a reason, we, get this, "DEFAULT" to the DEFAULT POSITION that you are allowed to do x.

And I pointed out that that wasn't the case and that it wasn't an automatic default. Ya see?

Nice. Do you think I'm a woman (hint: I'm not.), or do you just think that it's somehow clever to refer to men as women as if it's some kind of insult?

It's quite hard for men to get sand in the penis. Have you not heard that term before?

[Noveros Prime]

Have you ran out of decent arguments so now you have to resort to personal attacks. Very steriotypical ones at that. How childish. Trust a conservative get angry at a feminist.

I am not angry, merely observant.

[Christian Democrats]

god hates you

. . .

[Four-sided Triangles]

It's been said before - gay couples in fact have the exact same rights as straight couples. I can prove this: any granting of same-sex marriages would be granting the exact same new rights to straight people as it would be to gay people. To argue that there's some kind of active restriction in place is absurd.

No doubt I'm a terrible homophobe (lol) for saying this but eh.

Correct. What your insufficient neurology fails to realize is that the two sexes DO NOT have the same rights. A gay man and a straight man have the same rights as far as marriage are concerned. However, a man and a woman do not. Only a man has the right to marry a woman. Women don't have that right. Only a woman can marry a man. This right is excluded to men. See? It's really easy to understand.