The Destruction of Straightness

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/Gwq3N0W.jpg

[myriverse]

Woohoo! Freedom!

[India]

How heterosexuality came to be....

<object height="315" width="560">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sgfQ9o2-9BM?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="315" width="560"></object>

[Zereh]

Samesies & people juice =P haha

[r00t]

homosexuality I believe is a nurture, not nature, thing. Many biologists and psychologists agree with me, and against the "gay gene" theory, with thousands of studies to back it up. I will note that scientifically speaking the opposing view does not have the enormous amount of evidence.

If we apply this assumption, then homosexuals (and humanity in general) were far better off when they were forced to conceal their activities. By making it acceptable, we will only increase the population of proclaimed homosexuals.

[Rhambuk]

Nice opinion. Typical christian here, shall we start burning them? or would you prefer a good old lynching?

[doraf]

homosexuality I believe is a nurture, not nature, thing. Many biologists and psychologists agree with me, and against the "gay gene" theory, with thousands of studies to back it up. I will note that scientifically speaking the opposing view does not have the enormous amount of evidence.

If we apply this assumption, then homosexuals (and humanity in general) were far better off when they were forced to conceal their activities. By making it acceptable, we will only increase the population of proclaimed homosexuals.

Nice opinion. Typical christian here, shall we start burning them? or would you prefer a good old lynching?

How does R00t's opinion make him a Christian? I am not a Christian and I agree with him. I majored in both Sociology an Anthropology and have taken more sexual gender classes than any male (including gay men) would want to endure in a life time. I have also came to the same conclusion as R00t and many others. This does not make R00t or myself a hate mongering Christian homophobes.

[Hasbinbad]

r00t what is your favorite color?

[Eliseus]

I still thing homosexuality doesn't logically make any sense. Christian or not.

Also, doraf, ignore Rhambuks comment, people like that are why the term bigotry is wrongfully thrown around in gay arguments so much. "You don't like gays, bigot." "Your comments must make you a Christian, therefore, bigot."

Speaking of Chistianity, take a look at the most recent approval of gay youth in the BSoA. Most of the Christian religions in most of the reports of this actually APROVE the move (I'm talking about the major christian religions, not the randoms that have a voice but only consist of several hundred people). Nice jumping to conclusions though Rhambuk that must be Christian if you think being a fag is wrong.

[Hasbinbad]

Your opinion, as a man who fucks women, about men who fuck men, is irrelevant.

[Eliseus]

Your opinion, as a man who fucks women, about men who fuck men, is irrelevant.

Hey whatever man, I only care about men who have sex with animals.

[Hasbinbad]

or children. or nonconsensually.

[Hasbinbad]

im sure there are other examples, but its only for that kind of stuff that you should ever give a fuck about who someone else is fucking, if it's not you. :P

[Hasbinbad]

actually children and animals both fall under consent

[Eliseus]

lol

[India]

homosexuality I believe is a nurture, not nature, thing. Many biologists and psychologists agree with me, and against the "gay gene" theory, with thousands of studies to back it up. I will note that scientifically speaking the opposing view does not have the enormous amount of evidence.

If we apply this assumption, then homosexuals (and humanity in general) were far better off when they were forced to conceal their activities. By making it acceptable, we will only increase the population of proclaimed homosexuals.


I'm pretty sure you meant to say that you agree with them, blindly.

The "gay gene" is old news. Here are some updates for you from "the scientific community"

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.

And "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.


Open your mind and recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

[Eliseus]

I'm pretty sure you meant to say that you agree with them, blindly.

The "gay gene" is old news. Here are some updates for you from "the scientific community"

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.

And "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.


Open your mind and recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

There are many reasons, none the justify them HAVING to choose the same sex though. "But the love man" I'm sorry, but with many recent statistics showing divorce rates and those wanting to even get married etc... It definitely must be the love!

[Ahldagor]

hbb, you know that destroying ideals would start the logic play of dismantling any credence that the shaw quote has with you in your sig.

[quido]

I think Hasbin should get his own thread like Harrison.

[Hasbinbad]

hbb, you know that destroying ideals would start the logic play of dismantling any credence that the shaw quote has with you in your sig.
too bad logic is just a theory

[Hasbinbad]

I think Hasbin should get his own thread like Harrison.
that would instantly be the longest thread in all of trolldom

[India]

There are many reasons, none the justify them HAVING to choose the same sex though. "But the love man" I'm sorry, but with many recent statistics showing divorce rates and those wanting to even get married etc... It definitely must be the love!

Good god, what language is that?

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

I was born without any genitalia at all. We "smoothies" are sick of all ya'll.

[Daldolma]

do not want balls or shaft

ty for offer tho

[Eliseus]

Good god, what language is that?

The least you could do if you were to attack what I said is to try and come up with something better then, "Good god, what language is that?" When it was clearly English.

[India]

The least you could do if you were to attack what I said is to try and come up with something better then, "Good god, what language is that?" When it was clearly English.

I wasn't attacking what you said because I couldn't decipher it.... try again

[Hasbinbad]

The least you could do if you were to attack what I said is to try and come up with something better then, "Good god, what language is that?" When it was barely English.
ftfy

[Eliseus]

I wasn't attacking what you said because I couldn't decipher it.... try again

Here, I will join the other Wikipedia linkers on this forum and give you the beginning of the English Language page.

"English is a West Germanic language that was first spoken in early medieval England and is now the most widely used language in the world.[5] It is spoken as a first language by the majority populations of several sovereign states, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and a number of Caribbean nations. It is the third-most-common native language in the world, after Mandarin Chinese and Spanish.[6] It is widely learned as a second language and is an official language of the European Union, many Commonwealth countries and the United Nations, as well as in many world organisations.

English arose in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England and what is now southeast Scotland. Following the extensive influence of Great Britain and the United Kingdom from the 17th century to the mid-20th century, through the British Empire, and also of the United States since the mid-20th century,[7][8][9][10] it has been widely propagated around the world, becoming the leading language of international discourse and the lingua franca in many regions.[11][12]

Historically, English originated from the fusion of closely related dialects, now collectively termed Old English, which were brought to the eastern coast of Great Britain by Germanic settlers (Anglo-Saxons) by the 5th century – with the word English being derived from the name of the Angles,[13] and ultimately from their ancestral region of Angeln (in what is now Schleswig-Holstein). A significant number of English words are constructed on the basis of roots from Latin, because Latin in some form was the lingua franca of the Christian Church and of European intellectual life.[14] The language was further influenced by the Old Norse language because of Viking invasions in the 9th and 10th centuries.

The Norman conquest of England in the 11th century gave rise to heavy borrowings from Norman French, and vocabulary and spelling conventions began to give the appearance of a close relationship with Romance languages[15][16] to what had then become Middle English. The Great Vowel Shift that began in the south of England in the 15th century is one of the historical events that mark the emergence of Modern English from Middle English.

Owing to the assimilation of words from many other languages throughout history, modern English contains a very large vocabulary, with complex and irregular spelling, particularly of vowels. Modern English has not only assimilated words from other European languages, but from all over the world. The Oxford English Dictionary lists over 250,000 distinct words, not including many technical, scientific, and slang terms.[17][18]"

You are fucking retarded if you can't read English. Obviously you can type it, so "decipher" better.

[India]

Get back on topic you non-english speaking cretin

[Eliseus]

Get back on topic, I'm just an idiot.

[India]

Man, you can't even hijack a quote correctly :(

I feel bad for you, I'll leave you alone

[Eliseus]

Man, you can't even hijack a quote correctly :(

I feel bad for you, I'll leave you alone

Thank you.

[Rhambuk]

I mentioned it being his opinion because thats all any of this is, opinion. There is no concrete evidence one way or the other that homosexuality is a choice, or just how your born. Christians, at least the vocal ones which seem to be most, also share the opinion that its a choice, wrong, immoral, they need to be "cured", and that they will burn in eternal hellfire.

The only reason I tied to the 2 together, is because if you've read root's other posts, he seems to be quite fanatic almost flagellant in his beliefs. That was my opinion, nothing more.

[Kagatob]

I still want a good Christian (I mean a homophobe) to give me a good description of when they chose to be heterosexual since to them sexual preference is obviously a choice.

[Rhambuk]

Speaking of Chistianity, take a look at the most recent approval of gay youth in the BSoA. Most of the Christian religions in most of the reports of this actually APROVE the move (I'm talking about the major christian religions, not the randoms that have a voice but only consist of several hundred people).

Of course they approve it, they have to or they'll lose popularity.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4876622854160399&pid=15.1

Fill them pews, people, that's the key. Grab the little ones as well. Hook 'em while they're young.

[Eliseus]

I still want a good Christian (I mean a homophobe) to give me a good description of when they chose to be heterosexual since to them sexual preference is obviously a choice.

Well, I'm not a homophobe, I actually am glad homosexuals are getting more rights, I do believe it is wrong to marry the same sex, but hey, at the end of the day I got my own problems to worry about. That being said though, it's not when or why we chose to be heterosexual, but most Christian religions believes that we we're created with agency. The issue that arises is homos who state they can't choose what they do, which is 100% against the belief in agency. What makes matters worse is those gay from religions that believe in it that deny having a choice.

[Rhambuk]

Well, I'm not a homophobe, I actually am glad homosexuals are getting more rights, I do believe it is wrong to marry the same sex, but hey, at the end of the day I got my own problems to worry about.

Believe it or not I agree with this =p

The whole marriage thing is honestly the church's realm and the state has no business interfering by creating new laws, just as the church has no business interfering with the state. Separation of. Theres a reason our forefathers, who would probably break off from current america looking for a new land to reform original america, implemented this they spent a lot of hard work and time designing a country that wouldn't have the problems ours has today. Citizens are arguing with each other, to the death at times, over two things that NEVER should have come close together.

That being said, theres no reason they don't deserve an equally blessed union maybe not one under the church but definitely one approved by society...

[Daldolma]

I still want a good Christian (I mean a homophobe) to give me a good description of when they chose to be heterosexual since to them sexual preference is obviously a choice.

the preference is irrelevant. the actions are what is supposedly a sin.

anyway, i never understood the fascination with "choice". it's a non-issue. if a pedophile tells you pedophilia isn't a choice, what would you say? oh, that's fine then? of course not. choice or not, don't touch a fucking kid.

similarly, if you grant that homosexuality is wrong, then it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not.

it's just silly to say consensual sex between adults is wrong. but the matter of choice doesn't really have a role in it

[Kagatob]

Well, I'm not a homophobe, I actually am glad homosexuals are getting more rights, I do believe it is wrong to marry the same sex, but hey, at the end of the day I got my own problems to worry about. That being said though, it's not when or why we chose to be heterosexual, but most Christian religions believes that we we're created with agency. The issue that arises is homos who state they can't choose what they do, which is 100% against the belief in agency. What makes matters worse is those gay from religions that believe in it that deny having a choice.

Believe it or not I agree with this =p

The whole marriage thing is honestly the church's realm and the state has no business interfering by creating new laws, just as the church has no business interfering with the state. Separation of. Theres a reason our forefathers, who would probably break off from current america looking for a new land to reform original america, implemented this they spent a lot of hard work and time designing a country that wouldn't have the problems ours has today. Citizens are arguing with each other, to the death at times, over two things that NEVER should have come close together.

That being said, theres no reason they don't deserve an equally blessed union maybe not one under the church but definitely one approved by society...

Agreed, the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. The reality is that they won't but if people stop acknowledging this fact the problem will undoubtedly never go away.

[Kagatob]

anyway, i never understood the fascination with "choice". it's a non-issue. if a pedophile tells you pedophilia isn't a choice, what would you say? oh, that's fine then? of course not. choice or not, don't touch a fucking kid.

Why would you compare pedophilia to homosexuality? One is a form of abuse and the other is a lifestyle choice that has 0 negative effects to anyone. They have nothing in common and you should be ashamed of yourself to even try to make such a comparison.

[Rhambuk]

Why would you compare pedophilia to homosexuality? One is a form of abuse and the other is a lifestyle choice that has 0 negative effects to anyone. They have nothing in common and you should be ashamed of yourself to even try to make such a comparison.

I think he was merely comparing attraction vs choice.

There was a young man that lived in a town ohh 3 or 4 towns away from mine. One day his father walked him and found him in a closet with his dog having sex with her. He claimed he loved the dog and wanted to marry it. What does Homosexuality have to do with pedophilia or both have to do with beastiality? nothing but in all circumstances its either an argument over a matter of natural attraction or choice...

[Kagatob]

I think he was merely comparing attraction vs choice.

There was a young man that lived in a town ohh 3 or 4 towns away from mine. One day his father walked him and found him in a closet with his dog having sex with her. He claimed he loved the dog and wanted to marry it. What does Homosexuality have to do with pedophilia or both have to do with beastiality? nothing but in all circumstances its either an argument over a matter of natural attraction or choice...

It's a ridiculous comparison to compare the 3 at all.

Pedophilia results in child abuse, the child suffers as a result 100% of the time and is non-consensual.

Bestiality results in likely animal abuse, we don't know whether or not the animal enjoys or desires the act (not advocating it, simply stating the fact we don't know) but the perpetrator of such still has no right to subject the animal to such because of a "possibility" existing that the animal will enjoy it. It cannot consent.

Homosexuality (particularly the homosexuality discussed herein) is the mutual love and gratification and satisfaction between two or more consenting adults.

It's disgusting to compare them at all.

[Rhambuk]

yes but there will always be people arguing back and forth "I can't help it I was born this way" or "It's a choice!" because we can't get that deep into the human mind to determine one way or the other. Thats all im saying.

I do agree with you =p

[Strifer]

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yQBiyRSbeFQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yQBiyRSbeFQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Kagatob]

yes but there will always be people arguing back and forth "I can't help it I was born this way" or "It's a choice!" because we can't get that deep into the human mind to determine one way or the other. Thats all im saying.

I do agree with you =p

Just making sure.

I like your new avatar btw, keep it :)

[Rhambuk]

haha thanks. I'm thinking of starting a guild on red named "Kramerica Industires"

[Kagatob]

haha thanks. I'm thinking of starting a guild on red named "Kramerica Industires"

I would join red for that, no joke. Just don't take the name "Kruuger" ok? :)

[Rhambuk]

I have all of my planned names saved and thats not one of them )

what I'd like to know is, whos the jeezely motherfucker that took the name rhambuk

[Daldolma]

Why would you compare pedophilia to homosexuality? One is a form of abuse and the other is a lifestyle choice that has 0 negative effects to anyone. They have nothing in common and you should be ashamed of yourself to even try to make such a comparison.

i'm beginning to worry about your literacy

the comparison is related to "choice", not to the relative rightness or wrongness. i said literally a sentence later that homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place

the point is to provide an example of a sexual preference that we all can agree is wrong. pedophilia is an example of this. that being the case, whether or not someone chooses to be a pedophile really doesn't matter. even if it is out of their control, it's wrong and they should be held accountable for any actions taken

whether homosexuality is wrong or not is a matter of consternation within christianity. as i've already said, it's clearly not wrong on an ethical or legal level. it's consensual. but if christianity were to deem it "wrong", then to those that agree it is wrong, it wouldn't matter whether it's a choice or not.

that being the case, the whole argument over whether homosexuality is a choice or not is largely beside the point

[Kagatob]

I'm trying to figure out exactly what point it is that you're trying to make then. The only thing I'm getting from this is that you're trying to claim that having the discussion in general is pointless which could be said about any discussion altogether which inherently defeats the purpose of having discussion in the first place.

[JurisDictum]

I mentioned it being his opinion because thats all any of this is, opinion. There is no concrete evidence one way or the other that homosexuality is a choice, or just how your born. Christians, at least the vocal ones which seem to be most, also share the opinion that its a choice, wrong, immoral, they need to be "cured", and that they will burn in eternal hellfire.

The only reason I tied to the 2 together, is because if you've read root's other posts, he seems to be quite fanatic almost flagellant in his beliefs. That was my opinion, nothing more.
I just want to point out the fact that someone wasn't "born" a certain way, really has nothing to do with whether there is a choice involved with their behavior at a later date. The role of genetics in human behavior is just a small part of a much bigger issue about Free Will.
Considering modern neuroscience has shown that we make decisions before we even think about them; it seems completely unjustified to get behind this magical free will concept where everyone has complete control over all (most, or even any) of the choices they make in life.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will

[Daldolma]

I'm trying to figure out exactly what point it is that you're trying to make then. The only thing I'm getting from this is that you're trying to claim that having the discussion in general is pointless which could be said about any discussion altogether which inherently defeats the purpose of having discussion in the first place.

the point is that homosexuality being innate or chosen won't change anyone's mind about whether it's right or wrong.

if someone thinks it's right (or at least not wrong), then they don't care if it's a choice -- you're free to make that choice.

if someone thinks it's wrong, they still don't care if it's a choice. they won't excuse it even if it can't be helped.

so determining whether it's nature or nurture really won't have any impact on how society appraises homosexuality. the people who are okay with it will still be okay with it, and the people who aren't still won't be.

[Kagatobs]

the point is that homosexuality being innate or chosen won't change anyone's mind about whether it's right or wrong.

if someone thinks it's right (or at least not wrong), then they don't care if it's a choice -- you're free to make that choice.

if someone thinks it's wrong, they still don't care if it's a choice. they won't excuse it even if it can't be helped.

so determining whether it's nature or nurture really won't have any impact on how society appraises homosexuality. the people who are okay with it will still be okay with it, and the people who aren't still won't be.

Homosexuality is wrong any way that you look at it because the species won't survive. It is a choice. Homosexuality should not be excused. Nurturing homosexuality isn't a part of nature and society doesn't like it. People are not okay with it and they never will be.
I
D
I
O
T

[Kagatobs]

Stop posting in the forums if you don't like the topic.
I
D
I
O
T

[Kagatobs]

I beat up black men for breakfast. They are mostly scared of me because I carry a white stick.

[Kagatobs]

It's true. I am a badass. But black men seem to ignore me when I walk down the street. I will nod at them in a friendly manner but they just give me a dirty look and continue walking away. They are scared of me.

[Cecily]

Biological Imperative. Survive. Reproduce. Pass genes on to the next generation. People get so angry when someone opts out of that hardwired animal instinct.

[Cecily]

Haha wiki, ty for agreeing with me (kinda). "Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive."

Gay people are therefore maladaptive and that's why society hates them. Science!

[Csihar]

so determining whether it's nature or nurture really won't have any impact on how society appraises homosexuality.

I'd like to point out that even if homosexuality falls under 'nurture' that still wouldn't make it a choice. Homosexuality is defined as the attraction to the opposite sex.
I have never seen a shred of evidence that people have a choice in who/what they're attracted to. A heterosexual person only has to look at their own experience: You hit puberty, you wanted to touch the opposite sex with sticky fingers. Why would it be any different for gay people?
The dating pool is significantly smaller, it is more difficult for people who want children and the negative reactions to your homosexuality can be life-threatening. Why would anyone choose to be gay?
Explanation given by Christians, Jews, Muslims: they want to sin.

Despite evidence to the contrary and no evidence in favour of homosexuality being a choice I can only conclude that the argument "homosexuality is a choice" is only a rationalization. They negative thoughts/feelings about homosexuality are already there and accepting the reality that it's not a choice would create a conflict. Easier for your brain to resolve this by projecting a choice.

Homosexual acts (which can come from heterosexuals as well) are of course a choice. And a fine set of choices indeed: A) Celibacy for a life-time B) Having sex with a person you do not find attractive

And of course "conversation therapy"...

I do agree with Daldolma that it doesn't matter whether or not it's a choice generally has no influence on peoples' opinion.
I have no problem with homosexuality and the matter of choice is insignificant for me. I even dislike the "born this way" argument used to defend gay rights. It shouldn't matter.

I am curious as to why homosexual acts are considered to be immoral (or bad in some way) to some of the people in this thread. Anything beyond "God doesn't like it" (I know it's more complicated than that, I'm just paraphrasing).
And why do people have a problem with gay marriage? I'm particularly interested in hearing from non-religious people.

The Abrahamic religions do not have a monopoly on marriage and their institutions certainly don't either. Civil unions existed before any of those 3 religions.

Some people have a problem with gay marriage but don't have a problem with 'civil union'. I only see a rather idiotic game of semantics. How does calling it by another name change anything? The act is the same.

I'm going to ignore the religious people that believe the sky will come crashing down when gay marriage is legalized for the next part...
There are 2 types of marriage. The first type of marriage is what the same-sex marriage discussion is concerned with. It is a civil union recognized by the state that establishes certain rights. Hospital visits, estate issues, tax purposes etc. This is 100% a civil rights issue. Religion has no place here and there are no good arguments to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

The second type of marriage is the 'religious marriage' ordained by God. This is a marriage between a man and a woman and this is the marriage that so many people are trying to defend. What a giant waste of time. No individual and no state can change this. No one has to power to influence it. It's been ordained by God. It doesn't required a legal document, it doesn't require a church, it doesn't even require a priest.

If a man and a woman stand in any random location and promise before God (which is anywhere?) to [fill in marriage vows] then they will married in the eyes of God. Getting a divorce lawyer wouldn't change that. Getting re-married wouldn't change that. The Bible is quite clear on that. The first person who have sex with is also your husband/wife in the eyes of God (which does include your rapist sadly enough).

Two gay people doing the same thing would not be a union recognized by God. Within this type of marriage, the only one that should be important to religious people, gay people can't get married. There is no issue.

Last comment on faggots... it's interesting how at least 90% of comments about homosexuals have to do with homosexual men. It's always about dicks, fudge-packing, hairy balls etc.
Is it really about homosexuality in itself?

Haha wiki, ty for agreeing with me (kinda). "Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive."

Gay people are therefore maladaptive and that's why society hates them. Science!

I figure this isn't an entirely serious response but I'll treat it as such. There are plenty of gay people who have biological children.

[Samoht]

i was at the dog park yesterday, and my boy dog took turns humping each other with two other boy dogs

they totally chose to sin.

[Rhambuk]

I just want to point out the fact that someone wasn't "born" a certain way, really has nothing to do with whether there is a choice involved with their behavior at a later date. The role of genetics in human behavior is just a small part of a much bigger issue about Free Will.
Considering modern neuroscience has shown that we make decisions before we even think about them; it seems completely unjustified to get behind this magical free will concept where everyone has complete control over all (most, or even any) of the choices they make in life.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will

I honestly don't believe its a choice. Humans, down to you and I, can't consciously choose what we find attractive. I can't stop and think to myself, that 350lb chick with the lazy eye crazy hair misshaped boobs flat ass lisp broken teeth and horrible body order is hot. No matter how hard I try i won't be able to convince myself thats hot, if it is to you thats great fat ugly chicks need love to but its not for me.

In saying such I don't believe no matter how hard I try I could choose to be a true homosexual. I can choose to physically have sex with a man that doesn't mean im attracted to him or the idea, it just means that i have control over my physical self.

[Rhambuk]

they totally chose to sin.

you need to send them to doggy straight camp lest they burn in doggy hell for all eternity.

[visage]

If someone is born gay. Does that mean they are born with a disability?

[visage]

If you are a male and you were blind folded. Another male performed Oral sex on you. Do you think it would feel terrible if you enjoy it with a female?

[Rhambuk]

If you are a male and you were blind folded. Another male performed Oral sex on you. [I]Do you think it would feel terrible if you enjoy it with a female?]/I]

huh

Its not like the male mouth is different from the female mouth, gloryhole surprise? =p

[visage]

Exactly. I want to make the point of you can enjoy sexual acts with anything and anyone. Yet still have a sexual preference to one sex. We can label it Bisexual, Pansexual , and situational. The fact remains, the majority of society will band and deem one as innapropriate , more so than the others. The gay movement is filled with society's stereotypes on purpose. Eventually society will be desensatized to it and accept it. Until society decides to get over it... Expect lots of things the majority finds odd. With that being said.... I wonder whats next on the list... Perhaps sexual preference on animals or machines???

[Rhambuk]

Exactly. I want to make the point of you can enjoy sexual acts with anything and anyone. Yet still have a sexual preference to one sex. We can label it Bisexual, Pansexual , and situational. The fact remains, the majority of society will band and deem one as innapropriate , more so than the others. The gay movement is filled with society's stereotypes on purpose. Eventually society will be desensatized to it and accept it. Until society decides to get over it... Expect lots of things the majority finds odd. With that being said.... I wonder whats next on the list... Perhaps sexual preference on animals or machines???

ok ok all sounds good.

whats next? I don't know, the homosexuality movement i can get behind humans should be able to do whatever they want as long as all parties are 100% consentual. I'm a firm believer of Jack Kevorkian's work as well.

[Hasbinbad]

Haha wiki, ty for agreeing with me (kinda). "Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive."

Gay people are therefore maladaptive and that's why society hates them. Science!
Riiiiight.

Humans are no longer subject to biological imperatives.

The fact that you think we are says a lot about you.

[visage]

ok ok all sounds good.

whats next? I don't know, the homosexuality movement i can get behind humans should be able to do whatever they want as long as all parties are 100% consentual. I'm a firm believer of Jack Kevorkian's work as well.

Right on. Now as soon as science finds a way to communicate with animals more clearly. I believe we humans might be able to have mutual consentual sex with some animals one day. Machines.... Another story... Although with computers now in days and biology. We probably can just breed our own consentual beings to our liking , and or even animals or machines. If not a false state of reality , if we aren't currently living in one... Now just need to que the music for White Zombies - More human than human

[Rhambuk]

I'm not really a big supporter/fan/advocate of beastiality and honestly I don't want to see people making out with their dogs in movie theaters. as for machines, drill a hole in the side of your tower and stick your fleshlight into it, dim the lights to set the mood hmmmm romance.

[visage]

I'm not really a big supporter/fan/advocate of beastiality and honestly I don't want to see people making out with their dogs in movie theaters. as for machines, drill a hole in the side of your tower and stick your fleshlight into it, dim the lights to set the mood hmmmm romance.

Me either. I am firmly convinced if humans can be convinced of killing animals, people, and destroying things. People can be convinced of all things , even sexual acts and acceptance with animals.... Humans are sick creatures.

[visage]

Whats amazing to me is... Death is currently absolute in terms of your body decomposing, however sex isn't. Yet people are easily convinced death in terms of destroying is more acceptable , but sex with objects, animals , and other things, is more controversal

[visage]

Now the interesting part to what I posted above. The statistics on jail time on a child molestor versus a murderer. Yet one is more highly subjected to the death penalty... Does that mean we should offer a sex penalty on child molestors to make it more balanced???

[Faerie]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUOKukkEck8

[visage]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUOKukkEck8


HAHAHAHAHAHHA totally linking that to a few friends of mine that are homophobic as shit.

[r00t]

im hobophobic

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2qcB6rpp1Fw?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2qcB6rpp1Fw?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Cecily]

Riiiiight.

Humans are no longer subject to biological imperatives.

The fact that you think we are says a lot about you.

Oh I totally think we are. Just not conscious of it all the time, ESPECIALLY when it involves sex. We're dumb animals and it's silly to think we're something special.

[r00t]

ram the clit and slide down til it pops in

[Samoht]

We're dumb animals and it's silly to think we're something special.

don't dumb animals hump each other all the time? even in boy-boy and girl-girl setups?

[Hasbinbad]

Oh I totally think we are. Just not conscious of it all the time, ESPECIALLY when it involves sex. We're dumb animals and it's silly to think we're something special.
That's a view I would expect from someone who thinks life is just a test delineating who get's the cheap seats and who gets front row for the afterlife variety show.

For the rest of us, rationality and responsibility to peer review (as a general concept, not just referring to published papers) is something to be lauded.

[Ahldagor]

too bad logic is just a theory

like evolution right?


cre·dence

/ˈkrēdns/

Noun

Acceptance of something as true: "psychoanalysis finds little credence among laymen".

The likelihood of being true; plausibility: "being called upon as an expert lends credence to one's opinions".

that would explain why you have no credence with anyone, but hold them to such high standards...holy shit, you're the ultimate american.

[Daldolma]

That's a view I would expect from someone who thinks life is just a test delineating who get's the cheap seats and who gets front row for the afterlife variety show.

For the rest of us, rationality and responsibility to peer review (as a general concept, not just referring to published papers) is something to be lauded.

i like to envision afterlife as king arthur round table

there are no cheap seats, just hellfire

[Lojik]

cre·dence
Love their music

[Barkingturtle]

Did not read thread but want to post.

http://i.imgur.com/678SQwo.gif

[Cecily]

That's a view I would expect from someone who thinks life is just a test delineating who get's the cheap seats and who gets front row for the afterlife variety show.

For the rest of us, rationality and responsibility to peer review (as a general concept, not just referring to published papers) is something to be lauded.

I don't see how you drag god into that. You're a big fan of free will aren't you? I'll pray for you.

[Rhambuk]

Love their music

i really hope your talking about ccr

[Lojik]

i really hope your talking about ccr

Of course. If there's another band with that a similar name I know nothing of them.

[Rhambuk]

Of course. If there's another band with that a similar name I know nothing of them.

first thing that popped into my head was cre-dence was creed, pronunciation, so it put that first.

wouldve just made me sad

[Barkingturtle]

first thing that popped into my head was cre-dence was creed, pronunciation, so it put that first.


This actually means ur gay sorry.

[Lojik]

This actually means ur gay sorry.

Probably just means he's from the County.

[Rhambuk]

This actually means ur gay sorry.

im actually celibate, by choice. the idea of going out to bars and fucking random chicks doesn't appeal to me, id rather wait a few years and not get a bunch of std's from dirty clubhopping skanks...

county, or country? I live in the country ive never been in county..

[Hawala]

homosexuality I believe is a nurture, not nature, thing. Many biologists and psychologists agree with me, and against the "gay gene" theory, with thousands of studies to back it up. I will note that scientifically speaking the opposing view does not have the enormous amount of evidence.

If we apply this assumption, then homosexuals (and humanity in general) were far better off when they were forced to conceal their activities. By making it acceptable, we will only increase the population of proclaimed homosexuals.

When I was young my father used to violently beat me for dancing to Janet Jackson, and I promised myself at 15 that one day I would kill myself for being gay.

When I was a freshman in college, on a day trip to Mexico, my best friend got in a fight and had a concussion. He started shouting "He's gay he's gay he's gay!" about me, and my friends reacted like "Yeah? So the fuck what?".

That was the first time in my life I felt like I was a worthwhile human being. I don't think people should ever have to conceal what they do, it just makes us hypocritical and hate ourselves.

[Lojik]

im actually celibate, by choice. the idea of going out to bars and fucking random chicks doesn't appeal to me, id rather wait a few years and not get a bunch of std's from dirty clubhopping skanks...

county, or country? I live in the country ive never been in county..

Hah. If you don't call it the county you're probably not from there so I guess I was wrong.

[Rhambuk]

Hah. If you don't call it the county you're probably not from there so I guess I was wrong.

oh theres a "the county" here but im south of it. the only thing i can even imagine that your talking about is aroostook county. budado (potato) country

[Barkingturtle]

A whole county of potato fuckers.

[Rhambuk]

I wouldn't put it past those guys up north...

[katrik]

Did not read thread but want to post.

http://i.imgur.com/678SQwo.gif

This is hot.

[Hasbinbad]

like evolution right?
No. Not at all.

[Frieza_Prexus]

And why do people have a problem with gay marriage? I'm particularly interested in hearing from non-religious people.

As a preface, one can start with an acknowledgement that certain "victimless" activities (See: the consenting adults argument) are still regulated and controlled by our culture and system of laws. For example, incest is regulated by our society. The reason is that society recognizes a valid public purpose in the regulation and promulgation of certain relational behaviors. IE: society is served by the preservation and promotion of cultural institutions that provide positive societal benefits.

The idea that homosexual attraction is natural or learned is mostly irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage, and it is often a distraction in the secular discussion of the issue.

Marriage exists as a societal institution to provide and promote the optimal environment for child-rearing. This is not to shout "PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN. It is simply an acknowledgement of the quality that makes marriage unique over other relationships in our society (professional, friendships, familial, etc.)

Ponder this: why is marriage regulated while friendships and non-marital sexual relationships are not? It is because there is a valid public purpose in the institution of marriage. Proponents of traditional marriage assert that children are best raised in a two parent heterosexual household. Yes, it is true that some same-sex parents may do a better job in some cases, but as a whole, traditional marriage advocates assert that in the aggregate traditional households are far more productive in creating well-adjusted adults that will contribute to society. Alternatively, many single parents do amazing jobs with their children. However, this is the exception that is permitted and not promoted. The valid public purpose (fostering the optimal child-rearing environment for society overall) is best served by preserving and promoting the traditional marriage.

Governments have three options when encountering societal issues. They may prohibit, permit, or promote a specific thing. Beneficial institutions are promoted (See above: traditional marriage's valid public purpose), relationships with no public purpose are permitted/left alone (See: friendships), and harmful relationships are prohibited as a net harm to society.

Traditional marriage advocacy cites that marriage carries numerous responsibilities and duties. Specifically, marriage is intended to foster and promote a stable family unit which serves as the foundation of our society. Gay marriage is often cited as a complete redefinition of marriage and that is what the battle is generally over. Marriage is not about "love." It's about creating the above foundation, and traditional marriage advocates cite that a traditional household is far better equipped, as a whole, to handle the rearing of children. Because marriage carries with it attendant rights, gay marriage, if allowed, then suddenly causes the promotion of an institution that does not serve the optimal public purpose. In short, children need both their mothers and their fathers. The role of each parent is unique, and it cannot be reduced to a series of "tasks" that can be completed in a rote manner. Children need their mom, and children need their dad. Any deviation is less than optimal from an overall viewpoint of society and such deviations (single moms, widow(er)s, etc.) are permitted but never promoted.

Marriage is rooted in the biological fact that men and women tend to produce babies, and when children are born they are innocent third parties. Marriage is intended to bind both parties together so that they may fulfill their responsibilities to this new third party. (Note that this is where one can begin a related discussion on the deleterious effects of no-fault divorce and the ramifications of a "convenience culture.)

In effect, the promotion of gay marriage has two primary effects. First, it promotes a child-rearing environment that is not optimal, thus it does not serve the "valid public purpose" of marriage. In effect, the government is recognizing that as a matter of policy and law that there is no distinction in gender roles vis a vis child rearing. This is seen as egalitarianism taken to an untenable degree by traditional marriage advocates who instead celebrate gender differences as something to be embraced.

Additionally, because gay marriage does not serve the "public purpose" the recognition of it is quite literally a redefinition of the word, and such an act is seen as needless. For example, what would happen if all uncles were legally declared to also be fathers of their former nephews? This seems silly at first, but the title of "father" carries legal rights. All of a sudden you have people that are legally capable of making decisions for a child that they have no right to do so for. Then you have the issue of when multiple "fathers" conflict. While the example may seem silly, it's not really that extreme. It is a good example and what happens, from a legal perspective, when you redefine a certain set of rights and titles to have a more expansive definition, a lot of overlap is instantly created and it becomes a tangled web. A prime example of this is the recent California bill which allows more than two parents per a child (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/california-multiple-parents-bill_n_1644613.html).

Finally, the redefinition of marriage is being sought by adults who seek to displace the original beneficiaries of the institution: children. Instead, these adults seek to bend the institution to their purposes usurping its original function. Traditional marriage is wounded by the legalization of gay marriage because it creates a situation where children are more frequently reared in a less than optimal environment.

Not every couple will have children, but every child has a mom and a dad.

[freez]

tldr that shit lol

[Hasbinbad]

Marriage exists as a societal institution to provide and promote the optimal environment for child-rearing.
Citation needed.

Everything else you said followed from this, and therefore is suspect.

[Hasbinbad]

that's not why marriage exists

"the optimal environment for child-rearing," says who?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Citation needed.

Everything else you said followed from this, and therefore is suspect.

Not everything. Note very carefully the point near the end concerning the "domino effect" that occurs when you rearrange legal definitions. If you want current research that supports the premise in question I'd direct you to the following:

What is Marriage - This was originally a note in the Harvard Law Review which was later expanded and adapted into a book. The paper is available for download via the SSRN:

Citation: [Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., What is Marriage? (November 23, 2012). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155 ]

Pay particularly close attention to footnotes 20 through 28, and footnote 37. You'll find at least 10 peer-reviewed studies or scholarly journal articles within these footnotes which have all been submitted for peer-review. In particular, pay close attention to footnote 21 which will direct you to a very large network of scholarly research backing this assertion.

Finally, marriage has existed long enough to create a presumption of optimality from a policy perspective. Marriage predates all other existing institutions and governments, and such longevity is ostensibly due to its usefulness for the aforementioned reasons. Those proposing the redefinition of traditional marriage actually carry the burden of overcoming this presumption. It is sleight of hand and deceptive issue-framing to think that the existing institution must justify its own existence and that the "new" should be presumptively accepted.

[Daldolma]

so let me get straight

marriage exists because man + woman = baby and married parents are optimal for a given child

except gay marriage would be man + man or woman + woman. these groupings are incapable of producing a child, meaning there are no additional children being brought into less-than-optimal situations

gay couples have the option to adopt children that are certainly NOT optimally situated with married parents. this adoption is presumably an improvement where an optimal outcome is not possible

it's funny, you acknowledge that "choice" is largely irrelevant (which i agree with), but your argument depends upon an assumption of choice. your argument is that gay marriage would promote the rearing of children in non-optimal households, but that only holds water if the alternative is for those children to be reared in optimal households. that's not possible unless you are attempting to push gay people into hetero marriages where they can produce children in an optimal setting.

but if we assume that people in gay relationships will remain gay, they can be integrated into institutionalized marriage and utilized as a sub-optimal improvement for children that would otherwise be raised in a gay single parent household, left unadopted, or raised in the household of a gay, unmarried couple. just as straight marriage promotes an optimal living situation for the third party child, gay marriage would promote a preferable -- if not optimal -- living situation for any child

also this is all based on super sketchy assumptions about optimal settings for raising a child. but if you want us to grant that married mother+father is significantly greater than any alternative, then i think you can grant that married gay parents would be preferable to single parent, foster home, or unmarried gay parents

[Hasbinbad]

Not everything. Note very carefully the point near the end concerning the "domino effect" that occurs when you rearrange legal definitions. If you want current research that supports the premise in question I'd direct you to the following:

What is Marriage - This was originally a note in the Harvard Law Review which was later expanded and adapted into a book. The paper is available for download via the SSRN:

Citation: [Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., What is Marriage? (November 23, 2012). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155 ]

Pay particularly close attention to footnotes 20 through 28, and footnote 37. You'll find at least 10 peer-reviewed studies or scholarly journal articles within these footnotes which have all been submitted for peer-review. In particular, pay close attention to footnote 21 which will direct you to a very large network of scholarly research backing this assertion.

Finally, marriage has existed long enough to create a presumption of optimality from a policy perspective. Marriage predates all other existing institutions and governments, and such longevity is ostensibly due to its usefulness for the aforementioned reasons. Those proposing the redefinition of traditional marriage actually carry the burden of overcoming this presumption. It is sleight of hand and deceptive issue-framing to think that the existing institution must justify its own existence and that the "new" should be presumptively accepted.
I'm really happy that a phd candidate wrote a paper that is obviously biased by judeo christian moral ethics and western family culture, but none of what you say actually follows from that, no matter how much jargon in which you attempt to cloak that shaky premise.

Marriage has existed blah blah.... Yeah, in a world where christianity is the law of the land. Let's try something different. That's the point of this conversation. The shit don't work. People are being hurt.

On your point, but more to mine, there are many, MANY more social justifications for domestic partnerships of DIVERSE types than there are to only traditional marriage. I'm not going to go look up the studies, but rest assured they show that the social benefit of having people committed together in the same domicile are more stable than single people, which offers enough of a benefit to society to justify the tax writeoff that they get. Keep in mind, this kind of legislation exists in most states, for this reason, and it's the name of "marriage," in the name of equality, that queers have been fighting for. It is highly disingenuous to suggest that rearing children is the only public purpose of the contractual union of people, whether sexual, romantic, under god, or fiscal.

Thirdly, the entire idea that marriage is the optimal setting for a child is ludicrous. Many cultures accomplish the rearing of children that would never even consider the modern american nuclear family, which, by the fucking way, has only existed as a majority social institution since the 50's? ..what are you fucking kidding me? It takes a village to raise a child is another way to look at it, and that flies in the face of what your phd student buddy says. lals.

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/5w5ROve.jpg

[Toehammer]

I think Hasbin should get his own thread like Harrison.

I think he might actually be Harrison.

that would instantly be the longest thread in all of trolldom

it is ironic, and paradoxically confusing, that you, as a fat man, are more full of yourself than full of food

http://i.imgur.com/UmpOi.gif

p.s. I don't know why it took me this long to put you on ignore.

[Hasbinbad]

Who are you?

[this user was banned]

This thread sucks; time for more fat women gifs

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2638565/fat-women-running-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/4220521/fat-women-on-scooters-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1225919/fat-black-ghetto-girls-dancing-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1660674/fat-o.gif

brb vomiting

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1714415/fat-o.gif

dredge and his wife

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1761240/fat-girl-o.gif

[Ahldagor]

lolz where are you finding these?

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1761262/fat-fuckin-o.gif

he didn't survive

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1775871/fat-ass-2-o.gif

[Ahldagor]

No. Not at all.

hbb you have no credence in this thread, and you don't seem to understand the usage of a simile for sarcasm. typical hypocritical american you are

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1810907/fat-foot-o.gif

fun fact: America spends more money on obesity than the national defense

[Ahldagor]

what was that that she crushed?

[Barkingturtle]

Tokyo.

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/2277327/fat-girl-o.gif

The scary part is, these things reproduce

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2537506/fat-o.gif

[Ahldagor]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/2277327/fat-girl-o.gif

The scary part is, these things reproduce

true. all for parental checks. sorry you're obese as fuck and can't take care of your self, so, no, you don't get a child.

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/2849470/fat-dancer-o.gif

[this user was banned]

true. all for parental checks. sorry you're obese as fuck and can't take care of your self, so, no, you don't get a child.

Fact: obese women produce children with diabetes

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/3102820/fat-lady-hole-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/3495162/fat-bitch-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/4105390/baby-got-fat-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/4123207/dolly-the-fat-lady-o.gif

[Eliseus]

Here is arguments from people like HBB even when given facts. "You are wrong, because it disagrees with my point of view.

~Hasbindumb"

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4382651/fat-woman-twerking-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4576620/gangnam-style-fat-kid-o.gif

destroying heterosexuality one gif at a time.

[Ahldagor]

nah, there's something of freakshow novelty in this.

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1722241/gettemmgirllll-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1844148/me-after-i-got-mah-weave-done-o.gif

nappy headded hoe got her weave

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/2018753/hilarious-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2321127/jennwebcam-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2535032/plump-princess-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2537643/shake-o.gif

hasbinfag this is how you should have made the thread

[Eliseus]

He's to busy trying to find out how you found gifs of all his girlfriends.

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3164406/fat-woman-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3169437/fat-girl-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://gifsoup.com/view/3223628/whalefall.html

Fact: this is how earthquakes start

[this user was banned]

http://gifsoup.com/view/3223628/whalefall.html

Fact: this is how earthquakes start


http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/3223628/whalefall-o.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/3327022/belly-a.gif

[this user was banned]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3666755/pop-and-lock-it-o.gif

[Hasbinbad]

hbb you have no credence in this thread
considering the source, thanks for the compliment!!

[Hasbinbad]

facts
lol

[Hailto]

actually children and animals both fall under consent

How long have you been a pedophile?

[Hasbinbad]

How long have you been a pedophile?
Excuse me?

[Hasbinbad]

How long have you been a pedophile?
Have you stopped beating up your grandmother?

[Hailto]

Excuse me?

Since birth or was it an environmental thing?

[Hasbinbad]

Since birth or was it an environmental thing?
Are you mad that your grandmother doesn't cry when you beat her anymore?

[Rhambuk]

I think some of the details got lost in the folds...

[Hailto]

Are you mad that your grandmother doesn't cry when you beat her anymore?

No im mad that you sexually exploit children, and have the gall to push your beliefs on my elf emulator forum.

[Hasbinbad]

No im mad that you sexually exploit children, and have the gall to push your beliefs on my elf emulator forum.
Maybe if you'd stop bloodying your grandmothers mouth, I'd stop raping your kid.

[Frieza_Prexus]

commentary

The issue is over the reasons for redefining marriage and the public purpose of the institution. The public purpose is to bind parents to their children and to each other. All laws and regulations of the institution should then be predicated upon that facet.

Most scholars today, on both sides of the issue, freely acknowledge that the freedom to contract should include the freedom to assign (medical) power of attorney, insurance benefits, inheritance, and so on. In effect, any right that is typically associated, but not at the root of the institution can be severable and expanded without redefining marriage itself. Thus, the argument that marriage needs to be redefined for non-biological/parenting reasons generally falls short. Essentially, the public purpose is replaced by redefinition to fulfill the private purposes of individuals seeking the redefinition. Example: three people are "in love" and want to get married solely on that basis. Such would require a redefinition of the institution.

The question is "why?" Why is there a pressing need to do so? Consider that friendships are not regulated in any way. Why would this "new" marriage require a definition that carries the force of law? In effect, if any form of new marriage (gay, group, etc.) is non-procreative what point is there in creating a new legal regime? The burden lies upon those seeking the change, and in light if the above, that burden is not met.

It is absolutely true that you can find instances of a gay couple or a single parent that do the job far more admirably than some normal parents. However, the aggregation of society is most benefited from the promotion the nuclear family. The role of mother and father cannot be reduced to a series of tasks that can be performed in a rote fashion. To be fair to your entire set of points, the issue is not specifically just gay marriage. It's about the redefinition of the institution and the subsequent weakening of it. For example, this also begs a discussion of no fault divorce which is a prime example of how the redefinition marriage weakens and detracts from the public purpose of the institution. Gay marriage is but one facet of the discussion (polygamy/andry, 3 or more "legal" parents, etc.)

'm really happy that a phd candidate wrote a paper

It's a bit nitpickey to attack the writers and not the content, but I'll bite. I suggest you investigate the writers a bit more. Robert P. George is a very respected scholar (including a JD from Harvard), Ryan T. Anderson is a rising star in political/social commentary, and Sherif Girgis is a Princeton Phd. Candidate, a 3L at Yale Law School, a Rhodes Scholar, he recently gave the keynote speech at the Harvard Law symposium on intellectual diversity in academia, and he's a 2011 Blackstone Legal Fellow (which holds a special place in my heart since I'm also a Blackstone alumni).

at is obviously biased by judeo christian moral ethics and western family culture

Let it be noted that the opposition was the first to even mention religion or Christianity as any sort of justification or point of contention.

I'm not going to go look up the studies

I find it interesting that you drop a [citation needed] on me, and when they are offered you turn around and drop this.


but rest assured they show that the social benefit of having people committed together in the same domicile are more stable than single people, which offers enough of a benefit to society to justify the tax writeoff that they get. Keep in mind, this kind of legislation exists in most states, for this reason, and it's the name of "marriage," in the name of equality, that queers have been fighting for. It is highly disingenuous to suggest that rearing children is the only public purpose of the contractual union of people, whether sexual, romantic, under god, or fiscal.


This is in no way a civil rights issue. All parties possess the same rights to enter into marriage as it is currently defined.

This again begs the question of, why is marriage regulated but friendships are not? Yes, some benefits have been intertwined with marriage over the years such as tax benefits. This can be seen through two lenses. First, tax benefits are ostensibly to support the children and not the adults which justifies it. Alternatively, it would be just as permissible to remove all tax benefits and simply keep the marriage as it is sans certain benefits. See above, for additional discussion of contractual relationships and how some rights that often accompany marriage SHOULD be severable and expandable by contract.

Why is marriage regulated, but friendships are not? Anyone who submits that marriage must be redefined must first answer this. Only then, can the discussion move forward.

[Samoht]

The public purpose is to bind parents to their children and to each other.

by this logic, people unable to bear children should not be allowed to marry. or the elderly.

tl;dr: rest of the post is still based on this misconception.

[Hasbinbad]

It's a bit nitpickey to attack the writers and not the content, but I'll bite. I suggest you investigate the writers a bit more. Robert P. George is a very respected scholar (including a JD from Harvard), Ryan T. Anderson is a rising star in political/social commentary, and Sherif Girgis is a Princeton Phd. Candidate, a 3L at Yale Law School, a Rhodes Scholar, he recently gave the keynote speech at the Harvard Law symposium on intellectual diversity in academia, and he's a 2011 Blackstone Legal Fellow (which holds a special place in my heart since I'm also a Blackstone alumni).
That's all well and good but it's still an opinion / law interpretation piece.
Let it be noted that the opposition was the first to even mention religion or Christianity as any sort of justification or point of contention.
Yes, you publish what amounts to a direct support of modern american christian values BUT YOU DIDN'T MENTION CHRISTIANITY!!! lol
I find it interesting that you drop a [citation needed] on me, and when they are offered you turn around and drop this.
Probably because what I said is common knowledge whereas what you're saying is a fringe opinion at best. If you REALLY want to challenge me on this, I will go find five+ published sources, but after I do you have to give me a blowjob. Take me up on it?
This is in no way a civil rights issue. All parties possess the same rights to enter into marriage as it is currently defined.
Millions of people define this as a civil rights issue, but XASTEN DOESN'T, SO IT MUST NOT BE. Not arguing to popularity tho, I'd take this point up with you in a side debate as well. This absolutely is a civil rights issue. It has to do with equality of government incentives.
This again begs the question of, why is marriage regulated but friendships are not?
Straw man. We're not arguing the difference between friends and spouses, but rather the difference between domestic partners and spouses.
Yes, some benefits have been intertwined with marriage over the years such as tax benefits. This can be seen through two lenses. First, tax benefits are ostensibly to support the children and not the adults which justifies it.
#1 this is not the only reason, and I think you know that, so you're being willfully deceitful. #2 queers can adopt.
Alternatively, it would be just as permissible to remove all tax benefits and simply keep the marriage as it is sans certain benefits.
This is really my favorite idea. Domestic partnerships have proven benefits to society, and should be encouraged. But get government out of "marriage."
See above, for additional discussion of contractual relationships and how some rights that often accompany marriage SHOULD be severable and expandable by contract.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please clarify.
Why is marriage regulated, but friendships are not?
Same straw man. Friendships are not the comparison, but rather domestic partnerships.
Anyone who submits that marriage must be redefined must first answer this. Only then, can the discussion move forward.
I am absolutely not obligated to compare apples to oranges. Make the comparison granny smith vs red delicious, then we can talk.

[this user was banned]

Fact: men that fap to asian port are more likely to be pedophiles

[Frieza_Prexus]

by this logic, people unable to bear children should not be allowed to marry. or the elderly.

I addressed this earlier somewhat, and the article I cited addresses this in copious detail (for additional commentary see Yale economist Jennifer Roback Morse's discussions which I believe are available on Youtube.) The infertile couple is the exception to the rule, and together the infertile couple still creates a "family capable" union. Remember, a main contention is that a marriage contains duties that cannot be performed by a member of the opposite sex, and so while a childless couple might not fully realize their abilities, they still possess the proper capacity.

It is this capacity that the state has an interest in promoting.

Additionally, even if all of the above were untrue, the lingering question still exists:


Why is marriage regulated, but friendships are not? Anyone who submits that marriage must be redefined must first answer this. Only then, can the discussion move forward.

[Hasbinbad]

I addressed your lingering question. It is based on a fallacious premise. Address that criticism please.

[Samoht]

Anyone who submits that marriage must be redefined must first answer this. Only then, can the discussion move forward.

i'm pretty sure that nobody is asking for marriage to be redefined, anyway (ty hbb for pointing out this little gem).

current definition: a domestic union between loving adults.

new definition: a domestic union between loving adults.

now, i'm pretty sure that's the same definition, but if you've got anything to show me i'm wrong, i'd be happy to show you how you're being a bigot.

[Hasbinbad]

Samoht I don't know who you are but I love your soul for your last line.

[Samoht]

The infertile couple is the exception to the rule, and together the infertile couple still creates a "family capable" union.

that seems convenient enough. from now on, when logic interferes with my argument, i'll just refer to it as the exception.

[Eliseus]

i'm pretty sure that nobody is asking for marriage to be redefined, anyway (ty hbb for pointing out this little gem).

current definition: a domestic union between loving adults.

new definition: a domestic union between loving adults.

now, i'm pretty sure that's the same definition, but if you've got anything to show me i'm wrong, i'd be happy to show you how you're being a bigot.

Actually, gays are asking to be redefine, it a current case in the supreme court right now, because the U.S. defines at as man and a woman, therefor homos are not able to get the same federal benefits.

[Eliseus]

At least get some facts right when trying to argue.

[Samoht]

Actually, gays are asking to be redefine, it a current case in the supreme court right now, because the U.S. defines at as man and a woman, therefor homos are not able to get the same federal benefits.

actually, i'm pretty sure that marriage was only ever defined as a man and woman with the defense of marriage act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act).

it was the homophobic republicans in congress that had to change the definition.

[Samoht]

At least get some facts right when trying to argue.

right back at ya, buddy

[Hailto]

Why are we actually having a discussion over wether or not gay people should be allowed to marry in 2013? This shit is sad yall, fucking deal with it.

[Eliseus]

I have no idea what I am saying, but try to respond with no u responses.

Oh?

[Samoht]

actually, i'm pretty sure that marriage was only ever defined as a man and woman with the defense of marriage act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act).

it was the homophobic republicans in congress that had to change the definition.

here was your response in case you missed it. doma defined marriage as opposite sex. doma has since been repealed.

moran.

[Rhambuk]

Why are we actually having a discussion over wether or not gay people should be allowed to marry in 2013? This shit is sad yall, fucking deal with it.

Some states have already begun allowing gays to get married, not many churches allow it but you can always go down to the courthouse and sign the documents how memorable..

in a few years more states will and so on. Eventually it will just be accepted though there will always be those trying to deny them one of lifes simple pleasures because they don't agree with it, even though it doesn't affect them in the least.

[Eliseus]

Why are we actually having a discussion over wether or not gay people should be allowed to marry in 2013? This shit is sad yall, fucking deal with it.

What? This could be said about anything. Why does a bear shit in the woods? This is 2013, deal with it.

People like to argue about what they feel morally right. This is 2013. Deal with it.

[Kagatob]

Actually, gays are asking to be redefine, it a current case in the supreme court right now, because the U.S. defines at as man and a woman, therefor homos are not able to get the same federal benefits.

This is only because it's easier when wading through the thousands and thousands of pages of legislature.

Anyone with half a brain knows that the "correct" solution would be for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely however with the way such laws are written it's nearly impossible to do so logistically. Most non-heterosexual couples looking to have the definition of marriage redefined aren't doing it because they believe it's the "correct" solution but because they believe it's the "best" solution since it's the only practical way to result in virtually the same level of equality.

[Samoht]

Christians attempt to force their bigoted morals on others. This is 2013. Deal with it.

[Eliseus]

here was your response in case you missed it. doma defined marriage as opposite sex. doma has since been repealed.

moran.

You realize what you linked agrees 100% with what I said right? Shut the fuck up.

[Eliseus]

This is only because it's easier when wading through the thousands and thousands of pages of legislature.

Anyone with half a brain knows that the "correct" solution would be for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely however with the way such laws are written it's nearly impossible to do so logistically. Most non-heterosexual couples looking to have the definition of marriage redefined aren't doing it because they believe it's the "correct" solution but because they believe it's the "best" solution since it's the only practical way to result in virtually the same level of equality.

That's great, There is no argument here. I was simply pointing out that moron with the retard skull avatar gave the wrong definition.

[Samoht]

You realize what you linked agrees 100% with what I said right? Shut the fuck up.

is this for real? did you even read what i linked? doma was a redefinition of marriage as written by republican homophobes. it wasn't gays that asked for marriage to be redefined.

doma has since been ruled unconstitutional and repealed.

moran.

[Eliseus]

is this for real? did you even read what i linked? doma was a redefinition of marriage as written by republican homophobes. it wasn't gays that asked for marriage to be redefined.

doma has since been ruled unconstitutional and repealed.

moran.

It's moron by the way.

Inb4 you google something to try and support the that you really meant moran.

[Hailto]

What? This could be said about anything. Why does a bear shit in the woods? This is 2013, deal with it.

People like to argue about what they feel morally right. This is 2013. Deal with it.

Yeah, the point is, the rest of the civilized world accepted gay marriage years ago. The only basis the argument against it has is some shit based in the bible. Denying gay people the right to marry won't make your secret craving for cock go away, sorry.

[Hasbinbad]

ITT: bigots passionately defend bigotry. Just like every other thread I've started in the last 2 weeks.

[Samoht]

It's moron by the way.

Inb4 you google something to try and support the that you really meant moran.

it's 2013 and this guy still doesn't understand moran.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/files/2013/02/get-a-brain-morans.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

It's moron by the way.
^Moran.

[Eliseus]

Yeah, the point is, the rest of the civilized world accepted gay marriage years ago. The only basis the argument against it has is some shit based in the bible. Denying gay people the right to marry won't make your secret craving for cock go away, sorry.

Apparently it won't make stupid assumptions like this either. My secret craving for cock ended years ago!

[Eliseus]

it's 2013 and this guy still doesn't understand moran.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/files/2013/02/get-a-brain-morans.jpg

Bro story cool.

[Hasbinbad]

My secret craving for cock ended years ago!
Didn't like the taste when he finished?

[Samoht]

Bro story cool.

that's right, be angry at what you can't understand.

[Eliseus]

Didn't like the taste when he finished?

Nah, I dislocated my jaw after shoving so many any. I decided it was time to stop.

[Eliseus]

that's right, be angry at what you can't understand.

I'm a raging bro.

[Hailto]

that's right, be angry at what you can't understand.

Religious people displaying blind hate/anger at things they don't understand, I don't believe it!

[Samoht]

This is 2013. Deal with it.

[Eliseus]

This is 2013. Deal with it.

[moklianne]

Idiots posting in a fat idiot's troll thread like it's a real debate.

loaded with fat chick pics

[Samoht]

Idiots posting in a fat idiot's troll thread like it's a real debate.

glad you could join us

[Daldolma]

Why is marriage regulated, but friendships are not? Anyone who submits that marriage must be redefined must first answer this. Only then, can the discussion move forward.

you've already provided this answer. because society has an interest in promoting unions that would produce more desirable societal outcomes. primarily, because marriage tends to improve outcomes for the children that typically accompany romantic relationships. where society can turn such a relationship into a quasi-permanent union with shared parenting responsibility, it is best served facilitating that union.

all of these reasons double for gay marriage, with the footnote that gay couples are not capable of producing their own offspring. you're unnecessarily concerned with optimization. unless you contend that gay couples can otherwise be convinced to enter heterosexual unions, society would be best served by facilitating gay unions as an optimal association for gay couples -- just as we are best served by facilitating unions for infertile couples. a gay married couple would form a union that produces a home with mutual parenting responsibility, a home that theoretically should produce greater benefit to society through improved parenting capability as opposed to single gays, unmarried gay couples, or foster homes. where you have a gay couple, you cannot have a straight couple. you can either have a married gay couple, an unmarried gay couple, or two single homosexuals. for the same reason a stable nuclear family is preferable to a single parent, society should prefer a stable gay union and should thus promote it via marriage

friendship is a different animal altogether. creating a legal union of friends would not produce any tangible benefit to society. most friends do not live together and do not produce or adopt children together. friends do not produce a single household or family unit

as for 3 people that love each other and want to create a lifelong union and come together to form a single family unit... that would very much be an exception, and not one worth redefining marriage for. but as homosexuality is estimated in nearly 10% of the population, it cannot be rightfully ignored

[Frieza_Prexus]

That's all well and good but it's still an opinion / law interpretation piece.

What's your point? Is a debate over project1999.org somehow more valid? The ideas and arguments presented within the article are at issue, how is that not a valid submission?

Yes, you publish what amounts to a direct support of modern american christian values BUT YOU DIDN'T MENTION CHRISTIANITY!!! lol

The arguments I have made are just as valid from a secular viewpoint as they are a religious one. Just because the goals of the secular and the religious arguments align does not mean that each necessarily must follow from the other. Dismissing something for sharing the same aspiration as something else is sleight of hand.

Probably because what I said is common knowledge

Yet, if I had asserted a point as "common knowledge" you'd be dropping [citation needed]. Wait a minute...

Millions of people define this as a civil rights issue, but XASTEN DOESN'T, SO IT MUST NOT BE. Not arguing to popularity tho, I'd take this point up with you in a side debate as well. This absolutely is a civil rights issue. It has to do with equality of government incentives.

No one, and certainly no Marriage law, deprives anyone of any actual right. Marriage is an institution which the law recognizes and regulates; the State does not create it. The "right to marry" is short hand for saying NOT that "I can do whatever I want and call it marriage," but rather a right to enter into this pre-existing institution. What is being proposed is to redefine the institution. Marriage enjoys a fundamental structure: Quantitative (2) and Qualitative (Male and Female): 2 and Male and Female. Under the guise of "civil rights" some are seeking to redefine that structure, which, some true civil rights issues such as miscegenation laws did not do. Miscegenation laws did violate civil rights because they wrongly restricted entry into the institution, an institution to which both sides accepted as a definitional matter; they did not redefine it as did polygamy (quantitative) does and as does same-sex marriage. (qualitative).

Marriage is NOT a private act; it is a social act and therefore, the State DOES have an interest in the institution: channelling responsible procreative behavior. The State recognizes that neither the Mother nor the Father are irrelevant to children and also that it is bad policy to create fatherless and motherless environments, something the law has long seen as bad policy.

All people have the right to marry, just as all people in the U.S. enjoy a host of other rights. Marriage as it is takes away nothing. All people possess the same right. Is polygamy also a civil rights issue? Group sex is not banned, nor is living together as a group, but group marriage is. What does marriage add that is not already available to this group? Should this restriction be lifted as well in the name of civil rights?

Additionally, even if marriage were somehow discriminatory in it's "unequal application" current jurisprudence would likely approve of it for furthering a compelling state interest (See Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

Why is marriage regulated, but friendships are not? Anyone who submits that marriage must be redefined must first answer this. Only then, can the discussion move forward.

This is not a strawman. It is an illustrative example. Consider: what is the GOAL of marriage that the government seeks to promote? It is not about love. It is about responsible child-rearing. You claim that "it takes a village to raise a child" - This is an explicit recognition that the creation of children is a public act, thus the government has a valid purpose in the recognition of marriage.

Friendship is not recognized because there is no goal to serve. It is a comparative example meant to tease out the distinction between marriage and friendship. Once the distinction is visible (that marriage is about promoting a mother+father+child relationship), you can then see the exact reason marriage was recognized by governments.

This is really my favorite idea. Domestic partnerships have proven benefits to society, and should be encouraged. But get government out of "marriage."

I can agree with this to an extent. How does this sound: all rights that stand between individuals such as (medical) power of attorney, certain inheritance rules, the assignment of benefits, and so on are no longer controlled by marital status. Instead they are controlled strictly by contract. Marriage in turn, is recognized strictly as between a man and a woman as a means to regulate and promote the nuclear family by creating certain legal presumptions and frameworks to promote the valid public purpose of binding parents and their children to each other.

If this is unacceptable, why?

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please clarify.

See answer immediately above.

i'm pretty sure that nobody is asking for marriage to be redefined, anyway (ty hbb for pointing out this little gem).

current definition: a domestic union between loving adults.

new definition: a domestic union between loving adults.

now, i'm pretty sure that's the same definition, but if you've got anything to show me i'm wrong, i'd be happy to show you how you're being a bigot.

This sounds very much like the "consenting adult standard" First, see my original post here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=986057&postcount=102

one can start with an acknowledgement that certain "victimless" activities (See: the consenting adults argument) are still regulated and controlled by our culture and system of laws. For example, incest is regulated by our society. The reason is that society recognizes a valid public purpose in the regulation and promulgation of certain relational behaviors. IE: society is served by the preservation and promotion of cultural institutions that provide positive societal benefits.

Also, see above. Marriage has nothing to do with love. If you wish to express your love I'm sure one can do it fully without government help. Do you mean to say that the government has to recognize love before it exists? Marriage is recognized, again, to promote the public purpose of responsible child-rearing. Also, why reference love? Friends love one another, but that does not grant them a civil right to be married. Love is legally irrelevant to why the State licenses marriage--would we want the State to inquire as to a person's quantity or quality of love before permitting marriage?

that seems convenient enough. from now on, when logic interferes with my argument, i'll just refer to it as the exception.

I suspect that you may not have fully grasped my statement so I'll restate it for you: The infertile couple still exists within the marriage framework because the regulation of marriage is concerned with promoting the familial capacity in society as a whole. The role of mother and father cannot be reduced to a set of rote tasks. Each gender plays a unique role, and together they enable the family environment that the government seeks to promote. They need not realize that framework, but they have enabled it and this fits within the purposes of the current recognition of marriage.


all of these reasons double for gay marriage, with the footnote that gay couples are not capable of producing their own offspring. you're unnecessarily concerned with optimization. unless you contend that gay couples can otherwise be convinced to enter heterosexual unions, society would be best served by facilitating gay unions as an optimal association for gay couples -- just as we are best served by facilitating unions for infertile couples. a gay married couple would form a union that produces a home with mutual parenting responsibility, a home that theoretically should produce greater benefit to society through improved parenting capability as opposed to single gays, unmarried gay couples, or foster homes. where you have a gay couple, you cannot have a straight couple. you can either have a married gay couple, an unmarried gay couple, or two single homosexuals. for the same reason a stable nuclear family is preferable to a single parent, society should prefer a stable gay union and should thus promote it via marriage

The answer is twofold. Noting that a gay union will not produce offspring we then ask why do they needed to enter into the institution of marriage is the first place? Note that I say this in light of my earlier point in this post that starts with "I can agree with" several paragraphs up. Secondly, once marriage is redefined the basis for defending it is lost. We already accept certain restrictions on marriage (blood-relatives, group marriage, etc.), but those restrictions are built off the notion that they are prohibited as unaligned with the specific policy goal of responsible child rearing. Note that "unaligned with" is NOT the same as "opposed to."

Allowing gay marriage would be a relatively minor change, but the effects would be legally far reaching as it would be a complete concession that the definition is subject to change. As I've already said several times, the gay marriage debate is really only one microcosm in the overall discussion on the integrity and preservation of marriage as a social institution. This is a wide discussion which includes many related issues such as no-fault divorce, polygamy, and even multiple-parenthood (see my original post for a link on SB 1476).

Redefining marriage to be more inclusive sets up a domino effect that will have legal ramifications because it redefines existing legal structures, titles, and inherent rights.

No one is seriously arguing that some rights should not exist, such as the ability to have a legally recognized partnership that allows things like inheritance, (medical) power of attorney, and so on. Marriage however, is accompanied by those powers; it does not concern them. That is the locus of the controversy; you cannot make it into something it is not.

[freez]

def did not read


way too invested



omglol.jpg

[Samoht]

The role of mother and father cannot be reduced to a set of rote tasks. Each gender plays a unique role, and together they enable the family environment that the government seeks to promote.

so now you're against single parents, too? or is the legality of single parent families another exception?

[Kagatob]

so now you're against single parents, too? or is the legality of single parent families another exception?

Checkmate.

[Daldolma]

The answer is twofold. Noting that a gay union will not produce offspring we then ask why do they needed to enter into the institution of marriage is the first place? Note that I say this in light of my earlier point in this post that starts with "I can agree with" several paragraphs up. Secondly, once marriage is redefined the basis for defending it is lost. We already accept certain restrictions on marriage (blood-relatives, group marriage, etc.), but those restrictions are built off the notion that they are prohibited as unaligned with the specific policy goal of responsible child rearing. Note that "unaligned with" is NOT the same as "opposed to."

Allowing gay marriage would be a relatively minor change, but the effects would be legally far reaching as it would be a complete concession that the definition is subject to change. As I've already said several times, the gay marriage debate is really only one microcosm in the overall discussion on the integrity and preservation of marriage as a social institution. This is a wide discussion which includes many related issues such as no-fault divorce, polygamy, and even multiple-parenthood (see my original post for a link on SB 1476).

Redefining marriage to be more inclusive sets up a domino effect that will have legal ramifications because it redefines existing legal structures, titles, and inherent rights.

No one is seriously arguing that some rights should not exist, such as the ability to have a legally recognized partnership that allows things like inheritance, (medical) power of attorney, and so on. Marriage however, is accompanied by those powers; it does not concern them. That is the locus of the controversy; you cannot make it into something it is not.

as to your first concern, modern society provides for the adoption of children for the non-child bearing. whereas romance between a man and woman was once the sole impetus for parenthood, it is not any longer. homosexuals, both single and in relationships, can and do adopt children with some degree of frequency.

marriage is beneficial to society for all the reasons you have enumerated. for sake of argument, i will even concede the dubious notion that, on the aggregate, results would improve if every born child were the product of a married man and woman. but that is clearly and demonstrably not the case. many children are born into unstable and dangerous circumstances. others still are born into stability and thrust into instability as their parents succumb to tragedy. these children are funneled into a system of adoption.

the united states has more needy children in undesirable living situations than quality environments to place them in. as such, societal goals should focus not only on promoting a nuclear family that can produce and provide for its own children. society should also promote the formation of as many stable, enduring family units as possible, with an eye toward improving the lots of adopted children and children placed within legal guardianships. in short, a stable family unit is a societal benefit worth promotion, whether or not that family unit is traditionally fertile. the bounds of fertility are no longer a significant obstacle to child rearing.

as to your second concern, i find it disingenuous. there is no slippery slope. a revision of the definition of marriage to include a desirable, comparable, common, but heretofore taboo relationship does not invite further expansion unless that further expansion is similarly beneficial to society. each on its own merits. the examples you are raising are either exceptionally rare, non-beneficial (or detrimental) to society, or materially different from an expansion to include homosexual relationships. polygamy involves a slew of issues that would subvert the intended societal benefits of marriage. to be brief, it would almost certainly increase the number of single parent households while decreasing paternal investment in child rearing. incest is unhealthy for the child. cases of intended 3-person marriage are exceptionally rare.

[Hailto]

Checkmate.

Enjoy your Taco's pal.

[Samoht]

a revision of the definition of marriage to include a desirable, comparable, common, but heretofore taboo relationship does not invite further expansion unless that further expansion is similarly beneficial to society.

i'm pretty sure marriage already meets this definition, even without any revisions

[Frieza_Prexus]

so now you're against single parents, too? or is the legality of single parent families another exception?

Of course not. Please reread my earlier posts concerning the ability of a government to promote, permit, or prohibit. Single parenthood is a consequence many different scenarios. At no point is anyone "against" single parents. Should the prevalence of single parenthood be discouraged through a regime that promotes the nuclear family? Absolutely, this is precisely was the marriage integrity movement is all about. (See earlier points on no fault divorce, etc.)

Also, please reread my previous post explaining the "exception" language you have taken issue with. I have clarified and elaborated upon what I wrote to address your concern.

Single parenthood is permitted, but not promoted by the government (and especially not prohibited). It is an unfortunate occurrence that exists, but it would be completely disingenuous to ignore that it exists.

[Eliseus]

i'm pretty sure marriage already meets this definition, even without any revisions

Shut the fuck up with your wrong definitions buddy.

And fuck single parents? Don't like my opinion, fuck you also.

inb4 christian bigot.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Shut the fuck up with your wrong definitions buddy.

And fuck single parents? Don't like my opinion, fuck you also.

inb4 christian bigot.

I think you may find more success if you rebutted the opposition with a bit more thought and a bit less FOAD.

[Samoht]

Shut the fuck up with your wrong definitions buddy.

And fuck single parents? Don't like my opinion, fuck you also.

inb4 christian bigot.

angry

[Eliseus]

I think you may find more success if you rebutted the opposition with a bit more thought and a bit less FOAD.

Man, it isn't worth it. There has been essentially several thread like this the past couple weeks with the same shit being spewed back and forth. Most I would like to point out, with no credible sources and anything from most people to consider a credible source in this argument is wikipedia, half the time to a page that isn't even relevant. I have come to a conclusion though from all of this. Atheists are stupid.

oh and

2013, deal with it.

[Samoht]

Of course not. Please reread my earlier posts concerning the ability of a government to promote, permit, or prohibit. Single parenthood is a consequence many different scenarios. At no point is anyone "against" single parents. Should the prevalence of single parenthood be discouraged through a regime that promotes the nuclear family? Absolutely, this is precisely was the marriage integrity movement is all about. (See earlier points on no fault divorce, etc.)

Also, please reread my previous post explaining the "exception" language you have taken issue with. I have clarified and elaborated upon what I wrote to address your concern.

Single parenthood is permitted, but not promoted by the government (and especially not prohibited). It is an unfortunate occurrence that exists, but it would be completely disingenuous to ignore that it exists.

let me be honest with you, nobody is going to reread your posts. your posts are kind of rambly and very disjointed. there's zero flow in logic from one point to the next.

also, you try to pass a lot of opinion off as fact. a lot.

so you should feel blessed that i obliged you the first time, and if you feel that you didn't get the point across the first time, the passive aggressive "you can't read" doesn't help your stance.

[Samoht]

Man, it isn't worth it. There has been essentially several thread like this the past couple weeks with the same shit being spewed back and forth. Most I would like to point out, with no credible sources and anything from most people to consider a credible source in this argument is wikipedia, half the time to a page that isn't even relevant. I have come to a conclusion though from all of this. Atheists are stupid.

oh and

2013, deal with it.

atheism is the next evolution of christianity just like eating pork and drinking beer is the next evolution is islam (remember, we had a 1000 year head start on them).

[Daldolma]

i'm pretty sure marriage already meets this definition, even without any revisions

it's complicated. on the state level, many definitions include language that prohibits marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. federally, with DOMA overturned, there's no restrictive definition, but there are a variety of federal laws that make no sense for homosexual couples as they were written with hetero marriage in mind.

it was a pervasive assumption that permeated through all levels of law

[Samoht]

it's complicated. on the state level, many definitions include language that prohibits marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. federally, with DOMA overturned, there's no restrictive definition, but there are a variety of federal laws that make no sense for homosexual couples as they were written with hetero marriage in mind.

it was a pervasive assumption that permeated through all levels of law

the problem is that all of these laws are recent. as in written in the last 20 years. homophobes redefined marriage to exclude same sex relations. now it's time to undo their damage.

[Samoht]

Most I would like to point out, with no credible sources and anything from most people to consider a credible source in this argument is wikipedia, half the time to a page that isn't even relevant.

don't be angry with wikipedia because doma was ruled unconstitutional :(

[Splorf22]

so now you're against single parents, too? or is the legality of single parent families another exception?

Everyone with a brain is against single parents. It's pretty fucking obvious that two people are going to do a better job at most things than one, and parenting is no exception. A quick google reveals a boatload of studies that children from single parent homes are more violetn, more likely to be abused, more likely to be incarcerated when adults, more likely to be fat, more likely to do drugs, less likely to do well in school, etc. The fairy tale of the brave single mom is just that: a fairy tale.

[Eliseus]

don't be angry with wikipedia because doma was ruled unconstitutional :(

What does doma have to do with anything. Hence someone linking a wikipedia page the was irrelevant. Apparently that link made what I said wrong right? Exactly, shut the fuck up, again.

[Eliseus]

Everyone with a brain is against single parents. It's pretty fucking obvious that two people are going to do a better job at most things than one, and parenting is no exception. A quick google reveals a boatload of studies that children from single parent homes are more violetn, more likely to be abused, more likely to be incarcerated when adults, more likely to be fat, more likely to do drugs, less likely to do well in school, etc. The fairy tale of the brave single mom is just that: a fairy tale.

QFT! Seriously

Inb4 kagatobs comes back with some irrelevant crap like genital mutilation.

[Samoht]

What does doma have to do with anything. Hence someone linking a wikipedia page the was irrelevant. Apparently that link made what I said wrong right? Exactly, shut the fuck up, again.

there's been a lot of discussion about changing the definition of marriage, but the definition of marriage was actually changed by doma in 1996 to try to define marriage as opposite sex only. it didn't work. doma is clearly pertinent to the discussion.

moran.

[Samoht]

Everyone with a brain is against single parents. It's pretty fucking obvious that two people are going to do a better job at most things than one, and parenting is no exception. A quick google reveals a boatload of studies that children from single parent homes are more violetn, more likely to be abused, more likely to be incarcerated when adults, more likely to be fat, more likely to do drugs, less likely to do well in school, etc. The fairy tale of the brave single mom is just that: a fairy tale.

this post supports same sex households for adoptive parents. i do not disagree.

[Samoht]

QFT! Seriously

Inb4 kagatobs comes back with some irrelevant crap like genital mutilation.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/files/2013/02/get-a-brain-morans.jpg

[Eliseus]

Cool stories, again, no one gives a shit about your useless wrong info.

"Umad"

Raging boner mad.

[Samoht]

Cool stories, again, no one gives a shit about your useless wrong info.

"Umad"

Raging boner mad.

great rebuttal, i'll have to use this one next time my new exceptions rebuttal doesn't work.

[Kagatobs]

The reason you are gay is because you cannot get the opposite sex to like you because your ugly. You should mutilate your genitals because you won't need them while not having sex with the opposite sex.

[Eliseus]

great rebuttal, i'll have to use this one next time my new exceptions rebuttal doesn't work.

Thanks man, you can use it whenever. NP

[Hasbinbad]

What's your point? Is a debate over project1999.org somehow more valid? The ideas and arguments presented within the article are at issue, how is that not a valid submission?
You're submitting it in an attempt to prove your position, but really it's just someones opinion. That person may be smart, but the work is obviously biased. I'm saying two things, which you're conflating as one out of sheer laziness. #1 the work you cited isn't a valid basis for persuasion if you're looking to change the mind of someone who doesn't value opnion. #2 whether or not the document explicitly calls to mind the fact that it is based in the the very narrow band of republican-american-judeo-christian moral values regarding marriage, has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is based in the the very narrow band of republican-american-judeo-christian moral values regarding marriage. Which it is. Obviously.
The arguments I have made are just as valid from a secular viewpoint as they are a religious one.
That is all well and good, but don't get mad when I call your "valid" arguments silly because they are based in the the very narrow band of republican-american-judeo-christian moral values regarding marriage.
Just because the goals of the secular and the religious arguments align does not mean that each necessarily must follow from the other.
Nobody ever said that, but the end of those goals is that "a man and a woman" kind of relationship is MORE EQUAL than "a woman and a woman" kind of relationship. Regardless of if the text of your source follows from religion or not, it's bigotry.
Dismissing something for sharing the same aspiration as something else is sleight of hand.
That is absolutely not why I am dismissing your source. If you look above I give a number of supports for the main reason, which is simply that it is bigoted.
Yet, if I had asserted a point as "common knowledge" you'd be dropping [citation needed]. Wait a minute...
Don't put quotes around common knowledge like you don't know that it is jargon. I used it specifically out of the lay context.
No one, and certainly no Marriage law, deprives anyone of any actual right.
This is slight of hand. You're using the jargon form of right, and in that you're certainly true. Men and women also do not have a RIGHT to get married. However, providing tax incentives to one group of people and basing the validity of that on the judeo-christian standard of marriage is institutionalized bigotry, EVEN IF gay partnerships didn't provide the same benefit to society that marriages do, which they do.
Marriage is an institution which the law recognizes and regulates; the State does not create it.
This is a nonsense point. So is water. So is your driver's license. There is no law that says gay people can't have water or drive.
The "right to marry" is short hand for saying NOT that "I can do whatever I want and call it marriage," but rather a right to enter into this pre-existing institution. What is being proposed is to redefine the institution. Marriage enjoys a fundamental structure: Quantitative (2) and Qualitative (Male and Female): 2 and Male and Female. Under the guise of "civil rights" some are seeking to redefine that structure, which, some true civil rights issues such as miscegenation laws did not do. Miscegenation laws did violate civil rights because they wrongly restricted entry into the institution, an institution to which both sides accepted as a definitional matter; they did not redefine it as did polygamy (quantitative) does and as does same-sex marriage. (qualitative).
That sure is a lot of words you used to essentially say "I'm a bigot."
Marriage is NOT a private act; it is a social act and therefore, the State DOES have an interest in the institution: channelling responsible procreative behavior.
I disagree that this is the reason for the states interest in marriage. I think it has much more to do with the fact that married people pay more taxes over time due to stability. This is incentive for the state to give tax breaks, since on the bottom line the state wins.
The State recognizes that neither the Mother nor the Father are irrelevant to children and also that it is bad policy to create fatherless and motherless environments, something the law has long seen as bad policy.
You literally just made that up.
All people have the right to marry, just as all people in the U.S. enjoy a host of other rights. Marriage as it is takes away nothing. All people possess the same right.
Actual marriage under social convention or under a deity or whatever is not the issue. Government benefits and spousal recognition / rights are the issues. I know that you know that, but good try trying to distract.
Is polygamy also a civil rights issue?
Using polygamy is a rhetorical red herring because "love and sex relationships" is not what is at issue. The real question is should domestic partnerships include more than two people? IMHO they should. If more than two people want to make a contractual commitment to each other to help each other when needed etc so they do not become a burden on society, then yes, they should receive tax breaks because even with those breaks they end up paying more to the system over time than single people.
Group sex is not banned
This is ONLY because of the hard work of activists. There are probably actually still laws in place prohibiting this and / or other kinds of sex in the states. Your argument is dumb as fuck. lol.
nor is living together as a group, but group marriage is. What does marriage add that is not already available to this group?
Commitment to each other.
Should this restriction be lifted as well in the name of civil rights?
Barring evidence to the contrary, absolutely.
Additionally, even if marriage were somehow discriminatory in it's "unequal application" current jurisprudence would likely approve of it for furthering a compelling state interest (See Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
I am not a lawyer, nor do I care to be one. Therefore I'm not going to "see" anything. If you can't explain something without cloaking it in this kind of subterfuge (unlinked sources that only a lawyer would be able to find, let alone understand), you probably don't understand what you're saying. I can attempt to answer to what I think is your point tho, in that the state has interest in committed couples in general, because of the reduced burden.
This is not a strawman. It is an illustrative example. Consider: what is the GOAL of marriage that the government seeks to promote? It is not about love. It is about responsible child-rearing.
I completely disagree with that premise. I think it is much more about reducing the burden on the state. Independent analysis will confirm this.
You claim that "it takes a village to raise a child"
I did no such thing; I pointed out that other people say that. But, granting your point for the sake of argument:
This is an explicit recognition that the creation of children is a public act, thus the government has a valid purpose in the recognition of marriage.
You're equating marriage to children, which is hilarious and also very judeo-christian of you.
Friendship is not recognized because there is no goal to serve. It is a comparative example meant to tease out the distinction between marriage and friendship.
Yeah but nobody but YOU made that comparison. It's an idiot comparison. We're discussing domestic partnerships vs marriage, not friendships vs marriage. Straw man.
Once the distinction is visible (that marriage is about promoting a mother+father+child relationship), you can then see the exact reason marriage was recognized by governments.
The distinction is moot as I have shown. Marriage is NOT about promoting a mother/father/child relationship. It's about saving money to fund war. Look at how we spend money in this country and there you go. If the government gave ANY fucks about your children or your relationship with your children, maybe we'd give more than a penny on the dollar for education. But we don't, because we don't. Your hair is a bird.
I can agree with this to an extent. How does this sound: all rights that stand between individuals such as (medical) power of attorney, certain inheritance rules, the assignment of benefits, and so on are no longer controlled by marital status. Instead they are controlled strictly by contract.
I am down with that.
Marriage in turn, is recognized strictly as between a man and a woman as a means to regulate and promote the nuclear family by creating certain legal presumptions and frameworks to promote the valid public purpose of binding parents and their children to each other.
You lose me here.
Opinions:
#1 The government probably should stop recognizing marriages separate from their recognition of domestic partnerships. A definition of marriage is actually not needed from this point of view, and can be left to local social groups like churches or affinity groups
#2 Why would you want to promote the nuclear family? IMHO there are much better ways to live, including for the needs of children.
#3 I do not think "binding" anyone to anyone else is a good idea. I think there should be repercussions for negligence, which is different.

[Hasbinbad]

Look how easy it is to beat hbb !

http://i.imgur.com/jeyMFAl.jpg

[Eliseus]

You guys need more tldr;

[Hasbinbad]

You guys need more tldr;
Quiet noob. Grown folk are speaking.

[Hasbinbad]

Now Xasten, I have addressed everything you said to me. Please stop skipping my salient points in your rebuttals.

[Eliseus]

u dum

[Hasbinbad]

^fat

[Eliseus]

K

[Daldolma]

hbb has a point. society benefits from marriage in many more ways than just child rearing

i also addressed the fact that homosexual marriage would result in net societal benefit with regards to child rearing

the attempts to justify marriage as a hetero-only societal promotion ultimately fail to hold water because they're rooted not in a compelling public interest, but in a moral code that doesn't translate to secular interests

[Ahldagor]

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHw8BEgbOyU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHw8BEgbOyU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Ahldagor]

how many people arguing this marriage thing are or have been married?

[Ahldagor]

also, how many of you understand that you're a moran for arguing this in a forum instead of going outside?

[Ahldagor]

hbb still has no credence. love how you ignore your own hypocrisy. americans man

[Hasbinbad]

I don't think you know what credence means.

[Hasbinbad]

Anyway, it's a beautiful day in sunny california. I'm gonna take ahlgadors only worthy advice to not be a moran.

[Ahldagor]

like evolution right?


cre·dence

/ˈkrēdns/

Noun

Acceptance of something as true: "psychoanalysis finds little credence among laymen".

The likelihood of being true; plausibility: "being called upon as an expert lends credence to one's opinions".

that would explain why you have no credence with anyone, but hold them to such high standards...holy shit, you're the ultimate american.

I don't think you know what credence means.

page nine. enjoy the weather.

[Eliseus]

Hey, I'm married, hence my post way back in this that states as a parent, I should be able to do whatever I feel is morally right, which then resulted in something about genital mutilation from kabob(sp) and something about his fat ugly girlfriend having 900 piercings.

[Ahldagor]

Hey, I'm married, hence my post way back in this that states as a parent, I should be able to do whatever I feel is morally right, which then resulted in something about genital mutilation from kabob(sp) and something about his fat ugly girlfriend having 900 piercings.

we have one. not griefing you. the whole thread shifted from something of sexuality to marriage. nobody seems to think that that connection is odd.

[Eliseus]

we have one. not griefing you. the whole thread shifted from something of sexuality to marriage. nobody seems to think that that connection is odd.

Yeah, I don't remember how it even got brought up, I just wanted to say F U to HBB pretty much for trying to say parents shouldn't have a say in what their children should do essentially.

[Ahldagor]

Yeah, I don't remember how it even got brought up, I just wanted to say F U to HBB pretty much for trying to say parents shouldn't have a say in what their children should do essentially.

his troll shtick is silly. he can't keep it up consistently either. it's obvious he's bored, but almost sad that he habitually stays here.

[Barkingturtle]

he can't keep it up consistently either.

Thread is officially back on topic.

[Hasbinbad]

lol

[Hasbinbad]

parents shouldn't have a say in what their children should do essentially.
This is not something I said, even "essentially."

I do however think there are certain things parents should NOT be able to do to their children, and coercing behavior upon threat of eternal damnation (or whatever your flavor of weird culty belief is) is definitely one of those things.

[runlvlzero]

Still a fan of hasbin, even if he is confirmed gay and doesn't even troll red forums anymore.

[Hasbinbad]

i tried to love red, but red doesn't want my love.

[runlvlzero]

Roll a girl toon xD