Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obergefell v. Hodges: Get your bets inFollow

#102 May 05 2015 at 9:46 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Ok, that sounds like I'm implicitly condoning rampant baby-making and giving-upping, but I'm not really.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#103 May 06 2015 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
See, the emphasis should be on *raising* children, not *making* them.
The whole making babies thing is a recent change in history created by the church to create a reason for people to get married that wasn't actually covered by religious text, nor any history book prior. It's just extremist revisionism, like how our founding fathers would object to reining in Christmas.

Edited, May 6th 2015 10:37am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104 May 06 2015 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'd also like gbaji to explain how sharia law is bad but basing US law on a very specific (narrow) Christian view is A-OK.
You're comparing all sharia law to just our marriage laws?
No, you stubborn gravel-brain. I'm pointing out that sharia and your swell little group(s), ie Heritage Foundation, etc. both operate on the principle of "let's have our religion be the basis for our national laws"..


The argument put forth in the paper has no religious basis at all. It looks at the issue purely from the point of view of biology and sociology. Of course, if you'd actually bothered to read it, you'd find that they addressed that to. But because you assume that they're just religious people trying to push their religious beliefs on you, you wont bother to read it. Which is probably the most absurd head in the sand approach I've ever seen.

You really shouldn't judge the argument based on your perception of the people making it but should just look at the argument itself. You might just find that it makes a lot of sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 May 06 2015 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The argument put forth in the paper has no religious basis at all.

Yeah, biologists usually talk about "perfect unions" and "being made one flesh" when describing fucking Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 May 06 2015 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
The argument put forth in the paper has no religious basis at all.
You don't know how context works.
gbaji wrote:
It looks at the issue purely from the point of view of biology and sociology.
Since when does science care about the "morals" of marriage? Or wheter a married couple unlocks the "one flesh" acheivement?
gbaji wrote:
Of course, if you'd actually bothered to read it, you'd find that they addressed that to. But because you assume that they're just religious people trying to push their religious beliefs on you, you wont bother to read it. Which is probably the most absurd head in the sand approach I've ever seen.
I did read it. You pretending that whoever wrote that isn't straining as hard as they can to obfuscate that (the religious foundation of their argument) is pretty telling, though.

Edited, May 7th 2015 3:30am by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#107 May 06 2015 at 9:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Yes! Exactly! See, the emphasis should be on *raising* children, not *making* them. Children will be made, regardless of anything anybody says or does. Raising them properly, that's what is important.


Sure. And by far the best way to maximize the odds of children being raised properly is to maximize the odds that those making them are married prior to doing so.

I'd also amend your statement a bit: "Children will be made by the sexual activity of couples consisting of one male and one female, regardless of anything anybody says or does."

Which is precisely why the institution of marriage is directed at those couples. Once we recognize that as a group, if they are engaging in sexual activity, they're going to procreate, whether they are married or not, or whether we want them to or not, or even whether they want to or not, so the best way to maximize the outcomes of the children that will inevitably result from their sexual activity is to do everything we can to encourage them to marry prior to procreating. The fact that we don't know which couples will procreate and which will not doesn't matter. We know that the set of couples consisting of one man and one woman is the entire set of all procreative couples. Thus, it makes sense to target marriage at that group.

It does not make sense to target marriage at a group larger than that because once you do that, you've made marriage not about procreation, but about the couple themselves. And once you do that, you can no longer justify any limits to the couples that should qualify. Why include two non-procreating males and not two non-procreating siblings? Why exclude a parent and a child from marriage? They certainly love each other, right? And it would certainly be beneficial for one to inherit the others property without having to pay taxes. Any combination of people can join together to raise children, and any combination of people can adopt children, and any women (regardless of relationship to anyone else) can choose to artificially inseminate herself, but only a couple consisting of one male and one female can create a child as a natural consequence of sexual activity.


I just think that too many people are viewing marriage as a benefit conferring status to be fought for and not as a social tool designed to help alleviate a potential social problem (children born without sufficient parental support, specifically in the form of biological fathers). When viewed as the former, it's some nice thing to try to get and to argue that by not getting it, you're somehow being left out or discriminated against. But when viewed as the latter, it's something to be applied to the group of people that cause the problem we're trying to solve and makes no sense at all (and is arguably counter productive) if applied to anyone outside that group). The group that causes the problem is the same set I mentioned earlier: Sexually active couples consisting of one male and one female.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 May 06 2015 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Wrong.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 May 06 2015 at 9:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The argument put forth in the paper has no religious basis at all.
You don't know how context works.


And yet, the fact remains that the argument put forth in the paper has no religious basis at all. You do understand that marriage massively predates all modern religions, right? Religions adopted and incorporated marriage, they didn't create it.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
It looks at the issue purely from the point of view of biology and sociology.
Since when does science care about the "morals" of marriage?


You don't think sociology addresses the issue of morals? Um... Not sure how to respond to that.

Quote:
I did read it. You pretending that whoever wrote that isn't straining as hard as they can to obfuscate that is pretty telling, though.


Obfuscate what? A religious imposition that doesn't exist in the argument they're making? If it's so difficult for you to separate the person making the argument from the argument itself, why not pretend that the most liberal person you can think of wrote the paper. Then read it. Then decide if it makes sense. You're judging it, not based on what it says, or whether what it says makes sense, but based on your assumptions about the people who wrote it.

But if you use that methodology then you can't ever make an intelligent decision about anything. You've picked one "side" one time, and forever anyone on the other side is wrong, no matter what? That's insane. If you disagree with what they've written, then why not say what you disagree with and why? What you've been doing is saying "they're wrong because I don't like them". Which is pretty silly.


What about their argument do you disagree with or think is factually or otherwise incorrect?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 May 06 2015 at 9:22 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The argument put forth in the paper has no religious basis at all.
You don't know how context works.


And yet, the fact remains that the argument put forth in the paper has no religious basis at all. You do understand that marriage massively predates all modern religions, right?

Which makes it entirely archaic and outdated. But, you know, no better reason to keep the status quo than "it's always been this way, why bother changing it?" That's not really any better an argument than religion.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#111 May 06 2015 at 9:26 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
What about their argument do you disagree with or think is factually or otherwise incorrect?
The same things when you said it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#112 May 06 2015 at 9:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
You don't think sociology addresses the issue of morals? Um... Not sure how to respond to that.
"of marriage". For someone who cries that people leave parts of your posts off you sure loving doing it. A lot.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
...why not pretend that the most liberal person you can think of wrote the paper. Then read it. Then decide if it makes sense.
No. It still makes no sense.
gbaji wrote:
1.) If you disagree with what they've written, then why not say what you disagree with and why?

2.) What about their argument do you disagree with or think is factually or otherwise incorrect?


1.) I did you snot-nosed little fuck. They are CLEARLY basing their argument off of Dogmatic Fundamentalist Christian beliefs. That is anathema to US jurisprudence.

2.) See 1.)
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#113 May 07 2015 at 3:23 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
1.) I did you snot-nosed little fuck.

How to Win Friends and Influence People.
#114 May 07 2015 at 3:29 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Allegory wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
1.) I did you snot-nosed little fuck.

How to Win Friends and Influence People.
gbaji has no friends.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#115 May 07 2015 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The state can recognize it in such case (ie: infertile couples). They don't say that it must do so.

Right. They just can't use sexual orientation or gender as the criteria to not recognize it. As you'll see in June.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#116 May 07 2015 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
I'll take David Gerrold's logic over gbaji's':

Quote:
David Gerrold
May 5 at 11:28pm · Edited ·

In my estimation, being born gay or not born gay is irrelevant to civil rights issues. Here's why:

1) If I was born gay...then another was born straight....thus, we deserve the same rights.

2) If I CHOSE to be gay...then another CHOSE to be heterosexual...thus, we deserve the same rights.


If marriage is a "Right", then all men and women deserve it, no matter if they choose another male or female to partner with.

Really Google, what is your problem with the word G A Y?

Edited, May 7th 2015 9:42am by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#117 May 07 2015 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
Which makes it entirely archaic and outdated.
Also hilariously incorrect, since the paper he's championing only covers the concept of marriage up to where religion took it over completely, and even then only up to the part where the churches started including kids into the concept.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119 May 07 2015 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Really Google, what is your problem with the word

It's not google, it's whatever idiot that coded the filter going ludicrously overboard, because you wouldn't want to threaten the dozens of dollars of ad revenue at stake.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#120 May 08 2015 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Poop.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#122 May 08 2015 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Poop.


Pooped twice, flushed once.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#123 May 08 2015 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'm conserving water.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 May 08 2015 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm conserving water.


Even though you left a floater?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#125 May 08 2015 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I like to think of it as evidence of a healthy life style.

Edited, May 8th 2015 11:07am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126 May 08 2015 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I like to think of it as evidence of a healthy life style.

Edited, May 8th 2015 11:07am by lolgaxe


Science says otherwise
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 329 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (329)