24

Pages:
1
…
7
8
9
10
11

24
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2011, 09:09 PM (4,097 Views)
gs	Aug 15 2011, 01:08 AM Post #211
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	Big Richard Aug 8 2011, 04:33 AM DragonLegend Aug 8 2011, 02:19 AM if you loved someone and married them, would you care if others thought your marriage was not real? No, you wouldn't. your argument is based off an assumption ye i can imagine that's why most people get married. to gain a certain status.



DragonLegend	Aug 15 2011, 01:14 AM Post #212
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	To quote SNL, "Really?"



gs	Aug 15 2011, 01:17 AM Post #213
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	well comon dragon. obviously you'd care if other people didn't consider your marriage real.



DragonLegend	Aug 15 2011, 01:18 AM Post #214
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Not a bit.



_Saladin_	Aug 15 2011, 01:18 AM Post #215
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Quote: Then you must be in the wrong thread. Read the last couple of pages. The discussion is about whether there's a good reason to ban incest, not whether there's a good reason for the government not to recognize that type of marriage. There is a good reason to ban it, it's what I've been talking about. But you can't enforce the ban so the only thing left that you can enforce is incestual marriage. We're talking about this because we're discussing why gay marriage is different from insectual marriage, remember? Quote: "It sucks to be different" does not mean it's discrimination. There's no such thing as gay marriage, just as there's no such thing as a purple-haired brunette. The truth can't be discriminatory. Yes it does. When you single a group of people out like that, it's the adult equivalent of bullying. There is a HEAVY negative connotation there. Quote: No, it's another way of saying, "Shut up, grow up, and stop trying to force people to accept your lifestyle. Nobody is discriminating against you." The world is going to Hell and people are crying about gay marriage. Jesus... Wow I hope you're joking. Just because there are bigger injustices doesn't mean you shouldn't care about lesser ones. What the fuck?



gs	Aug 15 2011, 01:23 AM Post #216
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 15 2011, 01:18 AM Not a bit. congratulations. the rest of the world would.



DragonLegend	Aug 15 2011, 01:30 AM Post #217
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Aug 15 2011, 01:18 AM There is a good reason to ban it, it's what I've been talking about. But you can't enforce the ban so the only thing left that you can enforce is incestual marriage. We're talking about this because we're discussing why gay marriage is different from insectual marriage, remember? Incest is already illegal and the law is regularly enforced. Regardless of whether it's enforceable or not, I was simply explaining to GS and Incog that there's no good reason to ban incest. Quote: Yes it does. When you single a group of people out like that, it's the adult equivalent of bullying. There is a HEAVY negative connotation there. Why would it matter if there is or isn't a negative connotation? Public policy has nothing to do with hurt feelings. Quote: Wow I hope you're joking. Just because there are bigger injustices doesn't mean you shouldn't care about lesser ones. What the fuck? Except, of course, it's not an injustice at all. If someone cares so much about a non-problem when their country is facing real, gigantic problems, they should be condemned for it. Edited by DragonLegend, Aug 15 2011, 01:30 AM.



DragonLegend	Aug 15 2011, 01:49 AM Post #218
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Aug 15 2011, 01:08 AM Big Richard Aug 8 2011, 04:33 AM DragonLegend Aug 8 2011, 02:19 AM if you loved someone and married them, would you care if others thought your marriage was not real? No, you wouldn't. your argument is based off an assumption ye i can imagine that's why most people get married. to gain a certain status. http://pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/3/ Scroll down a bit, for the reasons why people get married.



Jack the IV	Aug 15 2011, 05:40 AM Post #219
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	That poll includes <3,000 people. That's about .000012% of the adult population of America. Nice stats bro, Anyways I would consider the civil union of marriage to be essential in the upbringing of children, considering the many economic benefits given to the married couples here in America.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


DragonLegend	Aug 15 2011, 10:41 AM Post #220
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	It's called statistics. As long as the sample is representative of the population, it doesn't matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)



_Saladin_	Aug 15 2011, 01:34 PM Post #221
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Quote: Incest is already illegal and the law is regularly enforced. Regardless of whether it's enforceable or not, I was simply explaining to GS and Incog that there's no good reason to ban incest. It should be banned, I already explained why. Your argument against my reason was that other things that should be banned too according to it aren't. And it's a shame that they aren't, but they're absolutely impossible to enforce because they require mind reading or spying. Incest can be effectively eliminated at least in the public domain by not recognizing it's marriages. Quote: Why would it matter if there is or isn't a negative connotation? Public policy has nothing to do with hurt feelings. What do you mean why would it matter? The only reason you won't give gays marital status but you'd give them EXACTLY the same benefits under a different name is to ridicule them and semantics. Who gives a shit about a very malleable definition? What does the government care what a majority of people think is the definition of marriage? The majority of people don't even know what the definition of larceny is, does that mean the government shouldn't call it that? What a desperate argument.



Jack the IV	Aug 15 2011, 07:47 PM Post #222
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 15 2011, 10:41 AM It's called statistics. As long as the sample is representative of the population, it doesn't matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) I recommend that you take a course in statistics.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


DragonLegend	Aug 17 2011, 01:57 AM Post #223
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Aug 15 2011, 01:34 PM It should be banned, I already explained why. Your argument against my reason was that other things that should be banned too according to it aren't. And it's a shame that they aren't, but they're absolutely impossible to enforce because they require mind reading or spying. Incest can be effectively eliminated at least in the public domain by not recognizing it's marriages. Indeed, not recognizing incest marriage doesn't eliminate incest at all. You said incest should be banned, because relatives can't give consent. Why shouldn't every request or action in the family be banned? Why shouldn't familial pressure/requests regarding marriage, career, education, etc. be illegal? If someone's mother tells him to marry that nice girl he goes to college with, and familial pressure is irresistible and family members can't possibly give consent, shouldn't the mother be prosecuted? Your argument is irrational, Sal. Quote: What do you mean why would it matter? The only reason you won't give gays marital status but you'd give them EXACTLY the same benefits under a different name is to ridicule them and semantics. Who gives a shit about a very malleable definition? What does the government care what a majority of people think is the definition of marriage? The majority of people don't even know what the definition of larceny is, does that mean the government shouldn't call it that? What a desperate argument. Nonsense. The reason 99% of governments don't recognize gay marriage is because it's a nonsensical concept and a minority view. There's no such thing as gay marriage in most societies, thus there's nothing to recognize. It has nothing to do with meanies bullying poor homosexuals. The government requires the consent of the governed. The government serves the people, not the other way around. When society decides marriage can be between two members of the same sex, and the majority of people give the government permission to recognize such marriages, the government will recognize them. Social engineering by the government is one of the most oppressive things the government can do. Edited by DragonLegend, Aug 17 2011, 01:59 AM.



Big Richard	Aug 17 2011, 02:14 AM Post #224
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	fucking slaves and women rights activists think they deserve rights.. too bad they don't know they're minorities and the government serves the people not slaves and women fucking noobs.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 17 2011, 06:12 AM Post #225
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	lmao
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Jack the IV	Aug 17 2011, 06:15 AM Post #226
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


DragonLegend	Aug 17 2011, 06:46 AM Post #227
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	If you guys thought that was somehow funny, you must have very low standards. Letterman fans, no doubt.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 17 2011, 07:26 AM Post #228
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Facetious amusement is best amusement.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Incog	Aug 17 2011, 09:00 AM Post #229
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	it's funny in the sense that he completely flattened your argument in two lines.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


_Saladin_	Aug 17 2011, 03:14 PM Post #230
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 17 2011, 01:57 AM Indeed, not recognizing incest marriage doesn't eliminate incest at all. You said incest should be banned, because relatives can't give consent. Why shouldn't every request or action in the family be banned? Why shouldn't familial pressure/requests regarding marriage, career, education, etc. be illegal? If someone's mother tells him to marry that nice girl he goes to college with, and familial pressure is irresistible and family members can't possibly give consent, shouldn't the mother be prosecuted? Your argument is irrational, Sal. Anything that coerces someone to do something through social pressure, familial pressure or otherwise is wrong and should be banned, but you can't do that because it would require that you infringe on people's liberty. So the next best thing is to ban government recognition of it through marriage. That's why gay marriage is different from incestual marriage. I don't know how put it any simpler than that. Pick out which part of that SPECIFICALLY you disagree with and explain why it's incorrect. Respond directly or I won't respond. Quote: Nonsense. The reason 99% of governments don't recognize gay marriage is because it's a nonsensical concept and a minority view. There's no such thing as gay marriage in most societies, thus there's nothing to recognize. It has nothing to do with meanies bullying poor homosexuals. The government requires the consent of the governed. The government serves the people, not the other way around. When society decides marriage can be between two members of the same sex, and the majority of people give the government permission to recognize such marriages, the government will recognize them. Social engineering by the government is one of the most oppressive things the government can do. As Jack clearly demonstrated, it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that gay marriage is a nonsensical and fringe idea. A huge bulk of the population supports it. Not that it would matter if they supported it or not, it's none of their god damn business.



DragonLegend	Aug 24 2011, 01:44 AM Post #231
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Aug 17 2011, 03:14 PM Anything that coerces someone to do something through social pressure, familial pressure or otherwise is wrong and should be banned, but you can't do that because it would require that you infringe on people's liberty. ... what? That's the most Orwellian thing I've ever heard. The reason you can't protect people's liberty is because it would violate their liberty? And why is banning incest requests OK but not other acts due to societal or familial pressure? What's special about incest? Why isn't it possible to ban parents from asking their adult children to drive them to the mall? Quote: So the next best thing is to ban government recognition of it through marriage. That's why gay marriage is different from incestual marriage. I don't know how put it any simpler than that. Pick out which part of that SPECIFICALLY you disagree with and explain why it's incorrect. Respond directly or I won't respond. I said nothing about marriage. We're discussing why incest should be banned. Incog and GS said it's because of deformed children or some such. You said it should be banned because family members, for some reason, are incapable of giving consent. Quote: As Jack clearly demonstrated, it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that gay marriage is a nonsensical and fringe idea. A huge bulk of the population supports it. Not that it would matter if they supported it or not, it's none of their god damn business. Huge? ~80 of Americans consider marriage between a man and a woman. It's the same (possibly slightly higher) in Europe. Latin Americans, Africans, Middle Easterners and the overwhelming majority of societies in the world are the same. Gay marriage is a fringe concept. It's none of people's business what their government's public policy is? There you go again with your Orwellianism. Edited by DragonLegend, Aug 24 2011, 01:46 AM.



_Saladin_	Aug 24 2011, 12:02 PM Post #232
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Quote: ... what? That's the most Orwellian thing I've ever heard. The reason you can't protect people's liberty is because it would violate their liberty? And why is banning incest requests OK but not other acts due to societal or familial pressure? What's special about incest? Why isn't it possible to ban parents from asking their adult children to drive them to the mall? Your hyperbole is getting annoying, stop treating every statement like it's the most disgusting thing you've ever heard. Anyway, the reason you're blatantly wrong is because you didn't read it carefully. What I was saying there is that there are lots of things that are considered morally wrong, but cannot be banned because it violates people's liberty. Now take a chill pill. The reason incest is different is because I am legitimately questioning their capability to give consent. Before we continue though, do you recognize statutory rape? That's what it would fall under. Quote: I said nothing about marriage. We're discussing why incest should be banned. Yah, because it relates to gay marriage. Fine, you know what, let's say that it's not what we were discussing. Consider us discussing it then. Go through that sentence again and reply to it. Quote: It's none of people's business what their government's public policy is? There you go again with your Orwellianism. Congratulations, I read 1984 too. We should start a club. It's none of their business because governments should do the right thing, not the popular thing, see theocracies if you disagree.



DragonLegend	Aug 24 2011, 12:55 PM Post #233
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Aug 24 2011, 12:02 PM Your hyperbole is getting annoying, stop treating every statement like it's the most disgusting thing you've ever heard. Anyway, the reason you're blatantly wrong is because you didn't read it carefully. What I was saying there is that there are lots of things that are considered morally wrong, but cannot be banned because it violates people's liberty. Now take a chill pill. The reason incest is different is because I am legitimately questioning their capability to give consent. Before we continue though, do you recognize statutory rape? That's what it would fall under. You said any societal or familial pressure should be both illegal and legal - because banning it would violate people's liberty somehow. I'm just genuinely wondering what you mean by that, since it seems no different than "war is peace" to me. Family urging someone to have sex with family member = illegal. But the same family urging the same person to marry someone, or get a college degree, or whatever = OK? Are you saying you're only talking about sex? If so, why? Also, why can't family members give consent? Does that have any scientific basis, or is it an opinion? Quote: Yah, because it relates to gay marriage. Fine, you know what, let's say that it's not what we were discussing. Consider us discussing it then. Go through that sentence again and reply to it. OK, you said you can't ban societal or familial pressure, so the next best thing is to ban government recognition of its marriage? How is that so? I don't see how refusing to recognize their marriage has any effect at all. Why would the lack of government recognition of, say, father-son marriage reduce the number of such relationships? Not to mention incest is only one of numerous actions to which family members can't give consent (according to you). What about pressure into joining the family company, or going to a certain college, etc.? How is marriage ban 'the next best thing' here? But I guess this depends on whether you're talking about all familial pressure or just sex-related familial pressure. Quote: Congratulations, I read 1984 too. We should start a club. It's none of their business because governments should do the right thing, not the popular thing, see theocracies if you disagree. Who gets to say if it's the right thing? The government isn't a separate entity. Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. And the people are saying marriage is between a man and a woman. We're talking about the definition of marriage here, not actual rights. The right to life trumps popular opinion, but the definition of marriage is entirely societal and thus the people's opinion is the only thing that matters.



_Saladin_	Aug 24 2011, 08:15 PM Post #234
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Quote: You said any societal or familial pressure should be both illegal and legal - because banning it would violate people's liberty somehow. I'm just genuinely wondering what you mean by that, since it seems no different than "war is peace" to me. Family urging someone to have sex with family member = illegal. But the same family urging the same person to marry someone, or get a college degree, or whatever = OK? Are you saying you're only talking about sex? If so, why? Also, why can't family members give consent? Does that have any scientific basis, or is it an opinion? I said any such pressure is wrong (morally), but you can't ban it because it violates people's rights. The difference between incest and forcing your kid to go to a college is that incest is like statutory rape, you can't give consent. Btw consent here refers to sexual consent. The definition for consent differs elsewhere in the law. Quote: OK, you said you can't ban societal or familial pressure, so the next best thing is to ban government recognition of its marriage? How is that so? I don't see how refusing to recognize their marriage has any effect at all. Why would the lack of government recognition of, say, father-son marriage reduce the number of such relationships? There are legal benefits to marriage. I'm saying the government shouldn't give legal benefits to incestual marriage because of the reasons I've already talked about. Quote: We're talking about the definition of marriage here, not actual rights. The right to life trumps popular opinion, but the definition of marriage is entirely societal and thus the people's opinion is the only thing that matters. So the government has to take a poll every time it wants to define something? Did the government take a poll to define grand theft auto? No, I'm sorry but historically the people rarely get to define government terms. I mean, really, what if people don't know what the definition of something is? How are we supposed to set up terminology in the government if we have to take a freaking poll every time we want to define a word?



Big Richard	Aug 25 2011, 02:57 AM Post #235
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	dragon's whole argument against gay marriage is mob-rule deciding what the word marriage means. Just because gays are a minority doesn't mean their inputs in the matter are irrelevant. An example of what I am talking about is in the post I made about slavery and women's rights. Welcome to the 21st century.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 25 2011, 07:00 AM Post #236
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Incog	Aug 25 2011, 08:10 AM Post #237
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Ultra-Musketeer Aug 25 2011, 07:00 AM SO AWESOME I watched 2 more episodes yesterday evening before going to bed. It's stupid but I need to start watching them in order.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


gs	Aug 25 2011, 10:44 AM Post #238
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	what you need is to stop watching.



Incog	Aug 25 2011, 11:08 AM Post #239
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	but i genuinely like the show. i actually laugh at times. i like the characters. idc if it's a kid's show and it's pink and about ponies. i like it.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


Jam	Aug 25 2011, 01:55 PM Post #240
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008
	Long live Carolus


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Create your own social network with a free forum. Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
7
8
9
10
11