Gay Marriage

[Grave_n_idle]

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

Tradition should be maintained.

Like... black Americans should be property?

Or, like Americans should renounce their so-called 'independence', and come back to the Commonwealth?

Which tradition, exactly?

I don't think so.

Not my problem. You want to take a pretty clear point off-topic. It's off-topic. I've explained the on-topic implications.

If you 'don't think so', that's your problem, not mine.

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

*shrugs*

I don't care. My arguments don't rely on personal prejudice.

[Archem States]

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.

You're atttacking the steriotypes again. If you don't come out of that little hole of yours you're never going to see the world for what it truely is.

[Noveros Prime]

I'm morally opposed to all sex. No, I'm not asexual. No, I'm not religious. I just respect women.

I think it is safe to assume that we can disregard any opinions that Four-sided triangles have on the basis of insanity.

Which tradition, exactly?

The ones I agree with.

[Four-sided Triangles]

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

Except that she was clearly saying what should be the case.

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

I have. It's sexist, and I don't like it.

[Grave_n_idle]

'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.

'Trolling' can serve a serious and positive role in debate.

This trolling of yours, not so much. You could have been so much more.

[Bluth Corporation]

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.

I agree. And some people come from traditions in which same-sex marriage is accepted or even encouraged. They should be free to live according to their traditions, and the government shouldn't impose others' traditions on them.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I think it is safe to assume that we can disregard any opinions that Four-sided triangles have on the basis of insanity.

Ad hominem. Logically invalid argument.

[Archem States]

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.

So observant that you are able to discern features from rows of text. All I can say is bollocks to your 'powers of observation' You're seeing what you want to see, not what is actually there.

[Toronina]

I must bring back the old argument. There arent any

[Noveros Prime]

Ad hominem. Logically invalid argument.

Be that as it may, your moral opposition to sex marks you as mentally ill, and I have little time to waste arguing with the insane.

And some people come from traditions in which same-sex marriage is accepted or even encouraged. They should be free to live according to their traditions, and the government shouldn't impose others' traditions on them.

When did I ever say that the government should disallow them? America does not have a tradition of same-sex marriage.

So observant that you are able to discern features from rows of text. All I can say is bollocks to your 'powers of observation' You're seeing what you want to see, not what is actually there.

I have ESP. I can detect neo-Marxists at 100 paces.

[Archem States]

I must bring back the old argument. There arent any

Any?

[Archem States]

Ad hominem. Logically invalid argument.

Be that as it may, your moral opposition to sex marks you as mentally ill, and I have little time to waste arguing with the insane.

And some people come from traditions in which same-sex marriage is accepted or even encouraged. They should be free to live according to their traditions, and the government shouldn't impose others' traditions on them.

When did I ever say that the government should disallow them? America does not have a tradition of same-sex marriage.

So observant that you are able to discern features from rows of text. All I can say is bollocks to your 'powers of observation' You're seeing what you want to see, not what is actually there.

I have ESP. I can detect neo-Marxists at 100 paces.

I'd say you were being irrational but you were never making any sense in the first place.

[Christian Democrats]

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

I agree. And some people come from traditions in which same-sex marriage is accepted or even encouraged. They should be free to live according to their traditions, and the government shouldn't impose others' traditions on them.

The government isn't imposing anything on gay people. In the United States, gays are free to live however they want within the laws.

Recognizing heterosexual marriages ≠ punishing homosexuals couples

[Four-sided Triangles]

Be that as it may, your moral opposition to sex marks you as mentally ill

Nonsense.

[Bluth Corporation]

Either way, even if there is a right to marriage, marriage is not defined as a same-sex partnership.

It is in a great many cultural contexts, actually.

[Archem States]

I agree. And some people come from traditions in which same-sex marriage is accepted or even encouraged. They should be free to live according to their traditions, and the government shouldn't impose others' traditions on them.

The government isn't imposing anything on gay people. In the United States, gays are free to live however they want within the laws.

Recognizing heterosexual marriages ≠ punishing homosexuals couples

Ah but not recognising homosexual marriages is punishing homosexual couples.

[Noveros Prime]

It is in a great many cultural contexts, actually.

Not in America.

Nonsense.

The act of reproduction is vital to survival as a species. To be against sex is irrational and self-destructive.

Ah but not recognising homosexual marriages is punishing homosexual couples.

It's not, but I wouldn't really care even if it was. I support the right of states to impose sodomy laws, too, so I suppose I'm a monster either way.

[Polruan]

Ah but not recognising homosexual marriages is punishing homosexual couples.

Not if you have civil partnerships it's not.

[Grave_n_idle]

I agree. And some people come from traditions in which same-sex marriage is accepted or even encouraged. They should be free to live according to their traditions, and the government shouldn't impose others' traditions on them.

The government isn't imposing anything on gay people. In the United States, gays are free to live however they want within the laws.

Recognizing heterosexual marriages ≠ punishing homosexuals couples

But refusing to grant the same recognition under the law - as guaranteed by the Constitution - is punishing homosexuals. And worse, it's punishing homosexuals against the specific letter of the Constitution.

[Salandriagado]

Ah but not recognising homosexual marriages is punishing homosexual couples.

Not if you have civil partnerships it's not.

Not letting black people in the white people's facilities isn't racist if there are other facilities for them.

[Bluth Corporation]

And some people come from traditions in which same-sex marriage is accepted or even encouraged. They should be free to live according to their traditions, and the government shouldn't impose others' traditions on them.

When did I ever say that the government should disallow them? America does not have a tradition of same-sex marriage.

Some cultures do. The whole point of America is that they can bring over those cultural features that do not involve violating the rights of others and live according to them without interference.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ah but not recognising homosexual marriages is punishing homosexual couples.

Not if you have civil partnerships it's not.

Actually, yes, it still is.

The 14th Amendment made explicit what had always been implied - rights under the law must be equal, not just 'similar'.

[Bluth Corporation]

It is in a great many cultural contexts, actually.

Not in America.

It is in those parts of America where people have chosen to transplant those cultural contexts.

Also, read your Hobsbawm. "Tradition" is itself constructed, not essential.

[Archem States]

Ah but not recognising homosexual marriages is punishing homosexual couples.

Not if you have civil partnerships it's not.

Civil partnerships are denying homosexual couples many legal rights. Especially considering you Americans don't have nationwide arangements such as this. Marriage is also very symbolic. If you were madly in love with someone, would you prefer to call them you wife/husband or would you be alright with settling for partner?

[Four-sided Triangles]

The act of reproduction is vital to survival as a species.

1. Evolution works at the level of genes, not species.

2. Why am I obligated to work for the survival of the species?

3. Reproduction can now be done without any sex at all, and soon, reproduction can occur without pregnancy, as we will be able to construct artificial uteri.

To be against sex is irrational and self-destructive.

No it's not. My self is not harmed in the least by not having sex. My genes might be harmed, but why am I obligated to care?