Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Watchtower
For everyone who would permit gays to have a long-term, loving and committed relationship, I say: why do YOU care what THEY call it, and require that THEIR state treat THEM differently (and worse)?

If they don't get entitled to any tax-payer sponsored benefits and if employers don't get forced to extend benefits to gay spouses because the word used is marriage, I won't care about what they call it. But if by naming it a marriage they get entitled to social security benefits and employers get forced to extend benefits to gay spouses, that is a valid reason to care about it.

Originally posted by Watchtower
I suspect you will come back to the religious meaning you personally have imbued a word with, and I, for one, do see the benefit of separation of church and state.

Look ass clown, and by ass clown I mean dumb ass, I hate religion. If you have read only 1 in 50 of my posts and have any functioning neurons inside your skull at all, you would know that.

Originally posted by Watchtower
I do not want the pope or the archbishop of Canterbury defining the meaning of legal terms in the US, and I do not want the meaning of any one church imposed on us all.

Neither do I. But I sure as fuck don't want to expand social security benefits.

Originally posted by Watchtower
Look at social security benefits, for example, and you will see is a rational basis for treating a group of 20 people connected by "marriage" with a single wage earner differently than treating any two people connected by "marriage".

This same argument can be made against gay marriage. And it is social security benefits and employer sponsored benefits that are the real reason gays want marriage and not civil unions. That is the only difference between a civil union and a marriage.

The fight for gay marriage is not about marriage. It is about money.

Originally posted by Watchtower
Find me a rational basis for distinguishing between couples based on preference that isn't tied to religion.

Find me a rational basis for distinguishing between couples and groups of 3 married individuals. Your argument is that more people in a marriage means more social security benefits. Well, more people being allowed to marry means more social security benefits, too.

Under both scenarios, more money gets paid to more people.

I still have yet to hear an argument in support of gay marriage that cannot also support plural marriage. Thanks for playing, though.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
[imaginary dialog with child re: criminal justice]

Now, for a real dialog on the same topic.

Atticus's brother-in-law, driving with family up 101 on the Central Coast: "Hon, check that sign out. 'Pleasant Valley Prison, 25 miles.' Can't be too pleasant, can it, har har har."

Atticus's five-year-old niece, from back seat: "Daddy, what's a prison?"

BIL (thinking quickly): "Um, it's a big building where people who've done something bad have to live."

Niece (pensive): "If I do something bad, will I go to live in a prison?"

BIL (panicking): "No, sweetie. Only people who do something really bad have to live in a prison."

[Ten second silence.]

Niece: "Like pinching?"

[Scene.]

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Not Me

Look ass clown, and by ass clown I mean dumb ass, I hate religion. If you have read only 1 in 50 of my posts and have any functioning neurons inside your skull at all, you would know that.

Neither do I. But I sure as fuck don't want to expand social security benefits.

It strikes me you hate more than just religion. Pity.

And it also strikes me you are simply opposed to social security.*

* And, of course, marriage. It sounds like you're opposed to anyone getting married.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Watchtower
What argument do you think those people would use OTHER THAN their faith?

The same argument that you used to say there is a valid reason for not allowing polygamy - social security benefits.

See all the arguments against polygamy can be used to argue against gay marriage. And all the arguments used to argue for gay marriage can be used to argue for polygamy.

This is a well-greased slope we are travelling down if gay marriage is allowed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I still have yet to hear an argument in support of gay marriage that cannot also support plural marriage. Thanks for playing, though.

Marriage is a traditional relationship between two people, forming into a distinct social unit that has much societal value. The expansion of this concept to "five guys, a girl and a giraffe" is an essential change in the entire concept, removing it from the realm of the recognition of the benefits of a pairing. Prohibiting people from entering into this pairing on the basis of characteristics that do not speak to this essential rationale, but are instead based on immutable characteristics subject to personal like or dislike, is a misuse of a state's power. The voiding of the laws prohibiting interracial sex and marriage did not change the fundamental nature of marriage, but instead merely made it available to all without regard for what became insupportable considerations.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
This is a well-greased slope . . .

Homophoic, anti-asian comments should be avoided. They are tacky.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Watchtower
It strikes me you hate more than just religion.

Yes, I also hate hypocrisy. If you are implying that I hate gays, and I think you are, you are wrong. However, there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage except the government benefits and employer sponsored benefits. That makes gay marriage all about money, IMHO.

Originally posted by Watchtower
And it also strikes me you are simply opposed to social security.

No, it is the fact that even more people are going to get more of my tax dollars simply because they decide they want to enter into a commitment with another person.

I am also against plural marriage and every time I hear the arguments for gay marriage, I recognize how easily they could be used to support allowing plural marriage.

I still have yet to hear from you any arguments in support of gay marriage that cannot also be used to support plural marraiges. Thanks again for playing, though.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Y

No, it is the fact that even more people are going to get more of my tax dollars simply because they decide they want to enter into a commitment with another person.

So, why not bar the door on all future marriages, straight or otherwise? That too would satisfy your money concerns.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yes, I also hate hypocrisy. If you are implying that I hate gays, and I think you are, you are wrong.

Not at all. I was implying that you are simply filled with hate in general. Your need to reply to me with vulgarity, for example, shows that you are a generally hateful person. I feel for you.

I hope we will all pray for Not Me.

God Bless.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Marriage is a traditional relationship between two people, forming into a distinct social unit that has much societal value.

Marriage is a traditional relationship between two people, one a man and one a woman. So this statement above, in which you conveniently leave out the one man and one woman part, fails to advance your argument.

Originally posted by bilmore
The expansion of this concept to "five guys, a girl and a giraffe" is an essential change in the entire concept, removing it from the realm of the recognition of the benefits of a pairing.

The expansion of this concept to two men or two women is an essential change in the entire concept, removing it from the realm of the recognition of the benefits of a pairing. You conveniently leave out that the benefits of the pairing historically have been that it takes one man and one woman to create a child. I am not saying this is a valid reason, just the historical reason that marriage was created - to further the creation of children. But you conveniently leave that out.

So your statement again fails to advance your argument. I personally think we have too many people on this earth and nothing should be done to encourage even more breeding by humans. However, that is in fact why marriage was created as an institution - to provide a social institution to promote breeding.

Originally posted by bilmore
Prohibiting people from entering into this pairing on the basis of characteristics that do not speak to this essential rationale, but are instead based on immutable characteristics subject to personal like or dislike, is a misuse of a state's power.

First of all, if civil unions are available, they aren't prevented from pairing with each other in exactly the same way heteros pair, the only difference being the social security and employer sponsored benefits. So the "misuse of state power" (your words) would be limited to only the denial of social security benefits to a non-working spouse or the failure of the state to force an employer to extend employee benefits to gay spouse.

Second of all, if this is such an abuse of state power, explain to me why it isn't a misuse of a state's power to prohibit people from entering into a polygamist union based on their religious beliefs? Explain that to me. These fundamentalist mormons believe that to achieve godhood they must engage in polygamy. They believe this is what god commands them to do.

Why is preventing gay marriage a misuse of a state's power but preventing polygamy not a misuse of a state's power?

Originally posted by bilmore
The voiding of the laws prohibiting interracial sex and marriage did not change the fundamental nature of marriage, but instead merely made it available to all without regard for what became insupportable considerations.

Voiding interracial marriage didn't make marriage available to all. It made it available to one woman and one man regardless of whether they shared the same racial characteristics or not. But you conveniently leave out that one woman and one man part yet again.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I still have yet to hear from you any arguments in support of gay marriage that cannot also be used to support plural marraiges. Thanks again for playing, though.

Sex is natural; sex is good. Not everybody does it, but everybody should. Sex is natural; sex is fun. Sex is best when it's ONE ON ONE. ONE ON ONE.*

*Sadly, for me, the jury is still out on this last proposition. The best we can hope for is an insufficient evidence appeal.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
*Sadly, for me, the jury is still out on this last proposition.

What, you haven't persuaded them to have the urge to herbal?

[notcasesensitive]

So do you all enjoy the act of collectively beating your heads against a wall? or is it the joy of having the "no you're an idiot, idiot" arguing style used against you? Anyway, glad you are keeping it entertained and away from the FB. Good day.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
So do you all enjoy the act of collectively beating your heads against a wall? or is it the joy of having the "no you're an idiot, idiot" arguing style used against you? Anyway, glad you are keeping it entertained and away from the FB. Good day.

Have you considered who you are talking to? I have still managed to make it over to the FB. Slow day there.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
So do you all enjoy the act of collectively beating your heads against a wall? or is it the joy of having the "no you're an idiot, idiot" arguing style used against you? Anyway, glad you are keeping it entertained and away from the FB. Good day.

Fuck off, skank.