NationStates

Munkchester wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Marriage is big dumb and useless. It’s a huge waste of money and resources.

edgy social libertarianism with authoritarian characteristics

We should ban having children because raising children is a huge waste of money and resources

Come back to the topic of the thread please.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Munkchester wrote:edgy social libertarianism with authoritarian characteristics

We should ban having children because raising children is a huge waste of money and resources

Come back to the topic of the thread please.

Asking me and not the guy who's taken the opportunity to rant about weddings being a waste of money?

Munkchester wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Come back to the topic of the thread please.

Asking me and not the guy who's taken the opportunity to rant about weddings being a waste of money?

i get it though and ok

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

Kustonia wrote:
Marriage isn't a waste of money and resources because they are shared amongst spouses and their children. Families generate wealth over time.

Let’s say we have person 1 and 2. Person 1 makes $40,000 per year. Person 2 makes 50,000 per year. They live in the same house. Their household income is $90,000 before taxes and expenses.
In another, they are married. They make the same amount of money. They still make the same amount of money.
There’s nothing special about marriage, it just complicates things. People can live together without spending money on weddings.

Why is it so important that since you and a few others decided marriage isn't for you that other people who want to get married should be told to get fucked?

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

Kustonia wrote:
Marriage isn't a waste of money and resources because they are shared amongst spouses and their children. Families generate wealth over time.

Let’s say we have person 1 and 2. Person 1 makes $40,000 per year. Person 2 makes 50,000 per year. They live in the same house. Their household income is $90,000 before taxes and expenses.
In another, they are married. They make the same amount of money. They still make the same amount of money.
There’s nothing special about marriage, it just complicates things. People can live together without spending money on weddings.

There's more to it than raw practicality. Romance, love, affection. It's useless if the only metric you use is money, true, but peoples' lives are more complicated than that. It's not necessary, true, but there's more to life than just necessity.

Munkchester wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Marriage is big dumb and useless. It’s a huge waste of money and resources.

edgy social libertarianism with authoritarian characteristics

We should ban having children because raising children is a huge waste of money and resources

Or we could open it up to the free market.
Bene Tleilax Childcorp Ltd, let us grow your perfect child.

As long as a relationship is based on mutual respect, understanding, and consent then I see it as a healthy one.

Slotted Floppies wrote:

Munkchester wrote:edgy social libertarianism with authoritarian characteristics

We should ban having children because raising children is a huge waste of money and resources

Or we could open it up to the free market.
Bene Tleilax Childcorp Ltd, let us grow your perfect child.

Personally, I prefer the traditional way of making children, but that's just me.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Let’s say we have person 1 and 2. Person 1 makes $40,000 per year. Person 2 makes 50,000 per year. They live in the same house. Their household income is $90,000 before taxes and expenses.
In another, they are married. They make the same amount of money. They still make the same amount of money.
There’s nothing special about marriage, it just complicates things. People can live together without spending money on weddings.

Then don't have a wedding. You can get officially married without doing all the wedding stuff. Last I checked, US law doesn't require a wedding for marriage.

But we're threadjacking here, let's get back on topic.

Smarter thing, if you have a couple thousand to spend - don't blow it on one day where you'd be stressed for months planning and all day on the day, blow that couple thousand on a honeymoon.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Let’s say we have person 1 and 2. Person 1 makes $40,000 per year. Person 2 makes 50,000 per year. They live in the same house. Their household income is $90,000 before taxes and expenses.
In another, they are married. They make the same amount of money. They still make the same amount of money.
There’s nothing special about marriage, it just complicates things. People can live together without spending money on weddings.

Then don't have a wedding. You can get officially married without doing all the wedding stuff. Last I checked, US law doesn't require a wedding for marriage.

But we're threadjacking here, let's get back on topic.

Many people have weddings and they might be pressured to have one. And paperwork always costs someone’s money.

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Three words: I don’t care. To hell with it if you two men decide to get “married”, I won’t bat an eye as this world is strange enough as it is.

Contradicts your sig somewhat:

Against: Gay marriage

Haven’t updated that in a looooooong time.

I don't have anything against it. If two (or more, I don't judge polygamists) people love each other and want to marry, then in my books, by all means they can go for it.

EDIT: I'd probably say my opinion is a simple one. When it comes to marriage and other things like that, my opinions are quite lax.

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

Slotted Floppies wrote:
Or we could open it up to the free market.
Bene Tleilax Childcorp Ltd, let us grow your perfect child.

Personally, I prefer the traditional way of making children, but that's just me.

Chances are it’s going to be uncompetitive, so extremely so that only the very wealthy will shag.

Everyone else will use sex bots with cat personalities.

This isn't worth a discussion. Gay and Lesbian marriage is a human right. Believing anything less than that fact is bigotry, plain and simple.

/thread

As long as it doesn't harm anyone I don't care. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Slotted Floppies wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Personally, I prefer the traditional way of making children, but that's just me.

Chances are it’s going to be uncompetitive, so extremely so that only the very wealthy will shag.

Everyone else will use sex bots with cat personalities.

That's called Beastality

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Because they demand to be accepted for “who they are” but they themselves cannot accept the way they are born.

The actual fuck? Saying "just accept it" to people with gender dysphoria isn't helpful.

Except I am not making the “grow up and move on” speech.

I only find it strange. Why ask for others to accept you “as you are” when you have failed to accept what you are? At this point, you are only asking for “accept me as what I think I am.”

I get it, people have gender dysphoria. Doesn’t change the fact that you are just appealing to what you think you are, but not what you are.

Support it, obviously. This isn't the frigging Middle Ages.

I believe its sinful, or at the very least does not accord with the union of man and woman as laid down in the Bible.

Munkchester wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Marriage is big dumb and useless. It’s a huge waste of money and resources.

edgy social libertarianism with authoritarian characteristics

We should ban having children because raising children is a huge waste of money and resources

That’s not logical, children are needed for the future population and they will impact the economy later on.

Quaeg wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Let’s say we have person 1 and 2. Person 1 makes $40,000 per year. Person 2 makes 50,000 per year. They live in the same house. Their household income is $90,000 before taxes and expenses.
In another, they are married. They make the same amount of money. They still make the same amount of money.
There’s nothing special about marriage, it just complicates things. People can live together without spending money on weddings.

There's more to it than raw practicality. Romance, love, affection. It's useless if the only metric you use is money, true, but peoples' lives are more complicated than that. It's not necessary, true, but there's more to life than just necessity.

And could you have the same emotions without wasting the time and money of both the government and yourself?

Heloin wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Let’s say we have person 1 and 2. Person 1 makes $40,000 per year. Person 2 makes 50,000 per year. They live in the same house. Their household income is $90,000 before taxes and expenses.
In another, they are married. They make the same amount of money. They still make the same amount of money.
There’s nothing special about marriage, it just complicates things. People can live together without spending money on weddings.

Why is it so important that since you and a few others decided marriage isn't for you that other people who want to get married should be told to get fucked?

They are wasting money while demanding that their waste be legally recognized. It will create an endless cycle within parts of society. You can just say you’re married, you don’t need a special stamp of approval from the government.

But no more on that. LGBT marriage should have the same status as usual marriage.

-MAFDET- wrote:This isn't worth a discussion. Gay and Lesbian marriage is a human right. Believing anything less than that fact is bigotry, plain and simple.

/thread

I wish it were that simple. Of course I agree with you but unfortunately there are way too many people out there who don't feel the same way.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:I believe its sinful, or at the very least does not accord with the union of man and woman as laid down in the Bible.

Ugh, oh boy. Here we go.

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

Slotted Floppies wrote:
Chances are it’s going to be uncompetitive, so extremely so that only the very wealthy will shag.

Everyone else will use sex bots with cat personalities.

That's called Beastality

Nope, no worse than having cat stickers on a sex toy.
It’s more masturbation.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:I believe its sinful, or at the very least does not accord with the union of man and woman as laid down in the Bible.

Finally somebody who understands

Woods Is Back wrote:

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:I believe its sinful, or at the very least does not accord with the union of man and woman as laid down in the Bible.

Finally somebody who understands

any other objections, or is that it?