Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[The Steel Magnolia]

Why and how?

It is you who is burdened with evidencing your side; I am at no liberty to do so, as I am on the side of 'nothing', as described by the general idea of a 'burden of proof'.

...

You really don't know how burden of proof works. You're the one advocating change.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Marriage has financial benifits for the participants.

Concubines can operate fine nonetheless, as conditions can be prepared to permit as much.

Concubines? What the fuck?

[Republic of Wreptzle]

I believe that as far as gay right is America go, we should allow states to decide how they define marriage. If there is a gay residence in a state that does not allow gay marriage, then they can move to a state that does. if there is someone who lives in a state that allows gay marriage but disagrees with that, then they can move to a state that doesn't allow it. Everyone can live in a state where they live comfortable, and their interests are respected in that state. Everyone is happy and aggression is filtered into state rivalry that will benefit them both. We did it with the Mormons and the Indians, and we can do it again too! Sounds like a good solution to me.

[Individuality-ness]

I believe that as far as gay right is America go, we should allow states to decide how they define marriage. If there is a gay residence in a state that does not allow gay marriage, then they can move to a state that does. if there is someone who lives in a state that allows gay marriage but disagrees with that, then they can move to a state that doesn't allow it. Everyone can live in a state where they live comfortable, and their interests are respected in that state. Everyone is happy and aggression is filtered into state rivalry that will benefit them both. We did it with the Mormons and the Indians, and we can do it again too! Sounds like a good solution to me.

That's stupid. Moving states isn't as easy as you think.

[Zweite Alaje]

Uh no, whores shouldn't get benefits.

Not once have I referenced 'whores', and for this reason alone I cannot consider you a serious person.

You're the one saying "conditions should be prepared" for concubines, if anyone shouldn't be taken seriously, it's you.

[Normandywe]

It is you who is burdened with evidencing your side; I am at no liberty to do so, as I am on the side of 'nothing', as described by the general idea of a 'burden of proof'.

...

You really don't know how burden of proof works. You're the one advocating change.

You are misguided. You are the one advocating a position of marriage, much like how it is the duty of theists to prove that a deity exists, not for atheists to prove that one does not. Does the popularity of your position at all shift the burden to me? No.

Not once have I referenced 'whores', and for this reason alone I cannot consider you a serious person.

You're the one saying "conditions should be prepared" for concubines, if anyone shouldn't be taken seriously, it's you.

You are daftly drawing assumptions, as I did not prepare a formal standard to discern those conditions. A new system could be set in place, not traditionally defined as marriage, but far more willing to the practical purpose in reproducing.

[Pillea]

I believe that as far as gay right is America go, we should allow states to decide how they define marriage. If there is a gay residence in a state that does not allow gay marriage, then they can move to a state that does. if there is someone who lives in a state that allows gay marriage but disagrees with that, then they can move to a state that doesn't allow it. Everyone can live in a state where they live comfortable, and their interests are respected in that state. Everyone is happy and aggression is filtered into state rivalry that will benefit them both. We did it with the Mormons and the Indians, and we can do it again too! Sounds like a good solution to me.

Should there also be states that are allowed to ban heterosexual marriage then? After all, all those heteros can just pack up and move states, it's apparently super easy, not like employers don't routinely plan for their employees to move hundreds of miles away at the drop of a hat.

[Lamassu]

Thank goodness marriage doesn't depend on one church, eh?

ya thank goodness the government has the ability to control marriage!:D

[The Steel Magnolia]

You're using words, and quite frankly, I'm not sure you know what they mean.

Also if you really insist, various financial benefits - it is in the interest of the state to promote and create incentives for healthy families.

[Normandywe]

You're using words, and quite frankly, I'm not sure you know what they mean.

Also if you really insist, various financial benefits - it is in the interest of the state to promote and create incentives for healthy families.

Well, I'm most certainly persuaded by your ability to evade my points and instead employ poor insults. It's a very poor practice, you see, and you're not at all convincing.
Your failure to understand burden of proof and general lack of insight only aid in my confidence.

[Urmanian]

I believe that as far as gay right is America go, we should allow states to decide how they define marriage. If there is a gay residence in a state that does not allow gay marriage, then they can move to a state that does. if there is someone who lives in a state that allows gay marriage but disagrees with that, then they can move to a state that doesn't allow it. Everyone can live in a state where they live comfortable, and their interests are respected in that state. Everyone is happy and aggression is filtered into state rivalry that will benefit them both. We did it with the Mormons and the Indians, and we can do it again too! Sounds like a good solution to me.

the "they don't like it, they can always move somewhere else" arguments never take into account how hard it is to geographically move especially between states/countries. so no, this is not a good idea just on that merit, besides homophobia, just as any type of illogical, harmful discrimination, must be combated on all fronts and not be tolerated anywhere just to preserve the delicate feelings of those who "just happen to disagree with gay marriage". gay marriage legalization must be universal, federal and not up to any vote.

[The Steel Magnolia]

You're using words, and quite frankly, I'm not sure you know what they mean.

Also if you really insist, various financial benefits - it is in the interest of the state to promote and create incentives for healthy families.

Well, I'm most certainly persuaded by your ability to evade my points and instead employ poor insults. It's a very poor practice, you see, and you're not at all convincing.
Your failure to understand burden of proof and general lack of insight only aid in my confidence.

It's like Obamacult/AuSable mixed with Aurora. I'm stunned.

[Liriena]

You're using words, and quite frankly, I'm not sure you know what they mean.

Also if you really insist, various financial benefits - it is in the interest of the state to promote and create incentives for healthy families.

Well, I'm most certainly persuaded by your ability to evade my points and instead employ poor insults. It's a very poor practice, you see, and you're not at all convincing.
Your failure to understand burden of proof and general lack of insight only aid in my confidence.

You remind me of many Youtube users. They think that embellishing their ad hominems with a "cultured" vocabulary will make them less noticeable.

You might want to use a different method.

[Zweite Alaje]

...

You really don't know how burden of proof works. You're the one advocating change.

You are misguided. You are the one advocating a position of marriage, much like how it is the duty of theists to prove that a deity exists, not for atheists to prove that one does not. Does the popularity of your position at all shift the burden to me? No.

You're the one saying "conditions should be prepared" for concubines, if anyone shouldn't be taken seriously, it's you.

You are daftly drawing assumptions, as I did not prepare a formal standard to discern those conditions. A new system could be set in place, not traditionally defined as marriage, but far more willing to the practical purpose in reproducing.

Ok.....

Then what was the point of mentioning concubines?

[Normandywe]

I was thinking we could instead instigate a system in which particular people could function as hubs of reproduction, producing children as their only occupation, allowing all the remainder of humans to go about their business without worrying about family life. An alternative system could filter the children for matters of upbringing.

Well, I'm most certainly persuaded by your ability to evade my points and instead employ poor insults. It's a very poor practice, you see, and you're not at all convincing.
Your failure to understand burden of proof and general lack of insight only aid in my confidence.

You remind me of many Youtube users. They think that embellishing their ad hominems with a "cultured" vocabulary will make them less noticeable.

You might want to use a different method.

I am confused by this, in that I am the one who has been subject to ad hominem attacks, not the other way around. I am also confused by the fact that you all manage to worry about the way in which an idea is expressed rather than the idea itself.
"We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us." ―Nietzsche

[Individuality-ness]

I was thinking we could instead instigate a system in which particular people could function as hubs of reproduction, producing children as their only occupation, allowing all the remainder of humans to go about their business without worrying about family life. An alternative system could filter the children for matters of upbringing.

...

People are not incubators. I really don't want to have to say this.

[Neutraligon]

I was thinking we could instead instigate a system in which particular people could function as hubs of reproduction, producing children as their only occupation, allowing all the remainder of humans to go about their business without worrying about family life. An alternative system could filter the children for matters of upbringing.

...Why reduce the gene poll that way. And what about people who want to have children and work at a job they enjoy. Oh and, people can be married without kids being involved. Oh and marriage forms stable social bonds that are beneficial to society. You are aware that there are benefits to marriage outside of children, right?

[Normandywe]

I was thinking we could instead instigate a system in which particular people could function as hubs of reproduction, producing children as their only occupation, allowing all the remainder of humans to go about their business without worrying about family life. An alternative system could filter the children for matters of upbringing.

...Why reduce the gene poll that way. And what about people who want to have children and work at a job they enjoy. Oh and marriage forms stable social bonds that are beneficial to society.

Emotions are to be discarded entirely, as they are far too departed from objectivity to be considered.

[Zweite Alaje]

I was thinking we could instead instigate a system in which particular people could function as hubs of reproduction, producing children as their only occupation, allowing all the remainder of humans to go about their business without worrying about family life. An alternative system could filter the children for matters of upbringing.

What....the.....flying.....fuck.

[Desperate Measures]

I was thinking we could instead instigate a system in which particular people could function as hubs of reproduction, producing children as their only occupation, allowing all the remainder of humans to go about their business without worrying about family life. An alternative system could filter the children for matters of upbringing.

You remind me of many Youtube users. They think that embellishing their ad hominems with a "cultured" vocabulary will make them less noticeable.

You might want to use a different method.

I am confused by this, in that I am the one who has been subject to ad hominem attacks, not the other way around. I am also confused by the fact that you all manage to worry about the way in which an idea is expressed rather than the idea itself.
"We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us." ―Nietzsche

You're a supervillain?

[Neutraligon]

...Why reduce the gene poll that way. And what about people who want to have children and work at a job they enjoy. Oh and marriage forms stable social bonds that are beneficial to society.

Emotions are to be discarded entirely, as they are far too departed from objectivity to be considered.

No thanks I would rather not be a psychopath. More than that, do you really think it is possible for humans to disregard all feelings and act like robots?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

...Why reduce the gene poll that way. And what about people who want to have children and work at a job they enjoy. Oh and marriage forms stable social bonds that are beneficial to society.

Emotions are to be discarded entirely, as they are far too departed from objectivity to be considered.

Did you, did you just watch The Matrix or some other bullshit movie?

[Normandywe]

Emotions are to be discarded entirely, as they are far too departed from objectivity to be considered.

Did you, did you just watch The Matrix or some other bullshit movie?

I don't watch movies, nor do I own a television. I am most fond of books, as I occupy all available time in the library.

[Zweite Alaje]

...Why reduce the gene poll that way. And what about people who want to have children and work at a job they enjoy. Oh and marriage forms stable social bonds that are beneficial to society.

Emotions are to be discarded entirely, as they are far too departed from objectivity to be considered.

That's BS, our emotions are part of what makes us human, a HUGE part. Social species need emotions as part of our survival instincts as well.

[Desperate Measures]

Did you, did you just watch The Matrix or some other bullshit movie?

I don't watch movies, nor do I own a television.

You're a supervillain!