Prop 8, tyranny of the majority? [Archive] - Page 8

01-08-2010, 11:22 PM

Yes, that's my belief, but I lean libertarian. I'm a supporter of government when they don't meddle in the lives of people. I do not think that the government should be able to legislate behavior they simply consider to be wrong. There should be a very strong rational argument to deny a person the right to be who they are.
Is there any way I can identify 'very strong rational arguments' without coming and asking you if a particular argument meets that standard? Can you provide me a definition, or at least an Audobon field guide?

Denying a person the right to do something with their own body, or to have consenting adults participate in an action? I can't think of any valid arguments to the criminalization of any drug use, prostitution, gay marriage, or polygamy.
Okay, here's one: "Because God wills it so." Sounds like a much more powerful and persuasive argument than "people have a right to control their bodies"... assuming the predicates are true. Obviously you don't believe in God. And I don't believe people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. Do you have a very strong valid, legal, rational basis for believing people have a right to control their bodies? If you do, why don't I have an equally powerful argument that God wills the criminalization of all these things? And ultimately, when did we start declaring people lose their right to vote if they're too inarticulate to offer cogent arguments? Because if being articulate is the basis for the franchise, I think I'm pretty much the only person in America who gets to vote.

Slack3r78

01-08-2010, 11:26 PM

And I don't believe people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies.
God gonna have to take off his belt and give you heathens a whippin'.

(given I was the one all "lol, hay guys, let be srs" I probably shouldn't be posting now, but fuck it. I've had a bad night, and therefore feel justified in being a giant douche :)

01-08-2010, 11:29 PM

(given I was the one all "lol, hay guys, let be srs" I probably shouldn't be posting now, but fuck it. I've had a bad night, and therefore feel justified in being a giant douche :)
Um, excuse me. I had a date tonight. And at 1:27 a.m. I'm here, talking to you guys. Please do not even begin to front with me about your "bad night."

Blue

01-08-2010, 11:29 PM

...and this is where I had a problem when I was enrolled in Theology classes. God is described as being omniscient. So I would ask, if that's the case then wouldn't he not care what happened to anybody? Then I would be reminded that God is good to which I would also answer that God is evil as well. I went further to explain that it isn't the Devil that watches over Hell, it is God. He watches over Hell just as he watches over Heaven and everything else - according to you (my teachers at the time). I didn't last very long at all in those classes.

Not to just jump in out of nowhere but this really interested me. For my senior project in college (one of my majors was Theology), our assignment was to write a paper on God and Evil and mostly what you said was my stance. Still is largely. I think too often that Christians are largely polytheistic without realizing it giving the Devil far too much credit for many things. I think that if someone truly believes that God is responsible for the creation of the world and the universe, you then would have to believe that he's responsible for what our concept of as evil is as well.

Mere Christianity is a great book to read for this type of subject in my mind (the above, no homosexuality). Really gets into us trying to put the context of human right/wrong, fair/unfair onto God and how that doesn't necessarily work.

Anyhow, off-topic, but I lasted four years with the above mindset and still made it out okay :). It's interesting that we're somewhat coming at it from the same point of view.

ShivaX

01-08-2010, 11:30 PM

Okay, here's one: "Because God wills it so." Sounds like a much more powerful and persuasive argument than "people have a right to control their bodies"... assuming the predicates are true.

Last I looked God wasn't in any of the branches of our government though. And who's God are we talking about? Again, theres a reason they put in that First Amendment.

I mean I could easily make the case that God doesn't want people to eat shrimp or pork. God wants us to avoid menstrating women, etc, etc.

I could just as easily make the case that God doesn't care about any of those things.

Until he comes down and tell us all on national television he doesn't get a vote, or if he does it doesn't count more than anyone elses (since odds are hes using a human medium to tell us about it anyway).

Slack3r78

01-08-2010, 11:31 PM

Um, excuse me. I had a date tonight. And at 1:27 a.m. I'm here, talking to you guys. Please do not even begin to front with me about your "bad night."

I was confronted with somebody who is a mirror image of a girl I was madly in love with a few years ago and managed to totally fuck things up, MOAB style, with through my very own special super powers.

YOUR FAILED DATES HAVE NOTHING ON ME AND MY BOURBON.

01-08-2010, 11:34 PM

Last I looked God wasn't in any of the branches of our government though. And who's God are we talking about? Again, theres a reason they put in that First Amendment.
Is/ought distinction. God isn't in our government, but he ought to be. Prove me wrong.

I could just as easily make the case that God doesn't care about any of those things.
This is exactly my point. johnperkins21 seems to think (and here I apologize if I unfairly characterize) that there's some difference between his opinions and other people's opinions: his are supported by 'very strong,' 'rational,' 'valid,' 'legal' arguments. "God wills it so" apparently isn't any of those things. I don't know exactly what he means by any of those terms he's used, but I don't know of any value that would make his distinction true. I am willing to admit I may simply have overlooked something.

Slack3r78

01-08-2010, 11:35 PM

Is/ought distinction. God isn't in our government, but he ought to be. Prove me wrong.
Leviticus. Bacon fucking rules.

txshurricane

01-08-2010, 11:37 PM

That's actually a pretty interesting point. I'm sure they would find it silly to believe in the old gods. Hmm.
I don't believe it's silly to believe in the "old gods" anymore than I believe it's silly to believe that blowing yourself and 30 others gets you a harem in heaven. Considering someone to be horribly incorrect doesn't mean they're "silly". Dangerous, maybe...not silly.

Blue

01-08-2010, 11:40 PM

I don't believe it's silly to believe in the "old gods" anymore than I believe it's silly to believe that blowing yourself and 30 others gets you a harem in heaven. Considering someone to be horribly incorrect doesn't mean they're "silly". Dangerous, maybe...not silly.

Wait a minute. You're saying I have to blow myself and thirty other people to get into Heaven?

Mags has the highest post count and the best spot in Heaven. Lousy Gnome.

Slack3r78

01-08-2010, 11:41 PM

Leviticus. Bacon fucking rules.

To counter my own point, I feel that, if there is a god, he's sort of like the adults in Peanuts; you hear "WAAH WAHH WAHHHH WAHH WHAAAA" but never really understand what they're actually saying. And they're looking out for us. And Leviticus is from a time period wherein humans were too dumb to properly cook a fucking pig, therefore not eating pigs was for our own good.

A couple of millenia later, though, we've grown up a bit. We're adolescents and shit. Not really capable of making adult decisions, and sometimes we do things just to be assholes, but we've grown up enough to be able to effectively cook a goddamned hog.

Therefore, delicious barbecue is now sanctioned in God's eyes, as we're no longer going to give ourselves hideous uncurable illness by eating it because we can't be bothered to cook the parasites and bacteria to death inside of it.

ShivaX

01-08-2010, 11:44 PM

Is/ought distinction. God isn't in our government, but he ought to be. Prove me wrong.

This is exactly my point. johnperkins21 seems to think (and here I apologize if I unfairly characterize) that there's some difference between his opinions and other people's opinions: his are supported by 'very strong,' 'rational,' 'valid,' 'legal' arguments. "God wills it so" apparently isn't any of those things. I don't know exactly what he means by any of those terms he's used, but I don't know of any value that would make his distinction true. I am willing to admit I may simply have overlooked something.

Fair enough, but my libertarian roots tell me that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people what to do or how to do things if it doesn't negatively impact others. It also says we treat everyone as equals and don't make up special rules that only make sense in the context of certain religions.

Slack3r78

01-08-2010, 11:46 PM

And since I brought up God's Eyes (TM):

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/3292_78548868580_500288580_1828489_935606_n.jpg

That's what happens when you let me write in a bar.

Okay, I'll stop posting now. I'm sure I've offended somebody at this point and thoroughly negated my whole LET'S BE CIVIL argument. I am nothing if not a hypocrite.

01-09-2010, 12:00 AM

Leviticus. Bacon fucking rules.
Acts. God agrees.

Fair enough, but my libertarian roots tell me that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people what to do or how to do things if it doesn't negatively impact others.
And when did your libertarian roots get a vote?
It also says we treat everyone as equals and don't make up special rules that only make sense in the context of certain religions.
No it doesn't. You don't believe we should treat everyone as equals, because that statement is meaningless. Some people are in prison, but you are not. Clearly you're not being treated as equals. Yet I doubt you have a problem with that.

"Wait a sec," I hear you explain, "that's equal treatment. They committed crimes, and I didn't. Therefore, it's equal to put them in prison and to let me go free." Okay, but if discriminating is possible while still treating people "as equals," then all discrimination is possible without being unequal. If I create a rule that says all left-handed people go to prison, then the rule treats people just as equally as the criminal/innocent distinction.

You think you should treat everyone the same unless there are certain relevant factors upon which we should discriminate. Everyone who has ever lived has agreed with the preceding sentence. All of political philosophy is an argument over the definition of "certain relevant factors."

Also, I'm pretty sure libertarianism is just as crazy and implausible a religion as Catholicism.

ShivaX

01-09-2010, 12:04 AM

Also, I'm pretty sure libertarianism is just as crazy and implausible a religion as Catholicism.

Well sure if you take it far enough anything is.

As far as the criminals thing... thats almost getting too obtuse to get into. I know a Ox logic trap when I see one. :p If it wasn't so late I might delve into it for old time's sake, but my mind is even duller than usual and I'd like to at least put up a fight.

01-09-2010, 12:10 AM

Well sure if you take it far enough anything is.
No, I mean ordinary, moderate libertarianism. You can't prove a single precept of libertarianism any more than I can prove the Virgin Birth. Heck, I at least can offer some double-hearsay testimony.

ShivaX

01-09-2010, 12:26 AM

Heck, I at least can offer some double-hearsay testimony.

http://i49.tinypic.com/fyq14n.jpg

Pay no attention to the mutated mad men crawling up the walls.

MagGnome

01-09-2010, 09:49 AM

What's more, same-sex couples are statistically much poorer, less educated, and less likely to own their own home than straight couples.

I cannot believe that no one else challenged this. Obviously my evidence is anecdotal, but I know several homosexual couples and they cover the gamut of social classes and educational backgrounds. The majority of them own their own homes as well. I find it hard to believe that I somehow know some special group of homosexuals that is outside the norm.

Um, excuse me. I had a date tonight. And at 1:27 a.m. I'm here, talking to you guys. Please do not even begin to front with me about your "bad night."

Welcome to my world, brother!

Wait a minute. You're saying I have to blow myself and thirty other people to get into Heaven?

Mags has the highest post count and the best spot in Heaven. Lousy Gnome.

You made me chuckle, but your logic is flawed. My high post count implies a rather inactive sex life. Unless you count ol' Lefty as a sex partner, I'm no more likely to reach that harem of virgins than you are, my friend. ;)

Generation ABXY

01-09-2010, 03:46 PM

No it doesn't. You don't believe we should treat everyone as equals, because that statement is meaningless. Some people are in prison, but you are not. Clearly you're not being treated as equals. Yet I doubt you have a problem with that.

"Wait a sec," I hear you explain, "that's equal treatment. They committed crimes, and I didn't. Therefore, it's equal to put them in prison and to let me go free." Okay, but if discriminating is possible while still treating people "as equals," then all discrimination is possible without being unequal.

If your business card doesn't say, "Devil's Advocate," I'm going to be extremely disappointed. :D

Panthera

01-09-2010, 03:59 PM

I never understood why the religious are against religious freedom. Why would you prevent churches that support it from marrying homosexuals?

Panthera

01-09-2010, 04:17 PM

Is/ought distinction. God isn't in our government, but he ought to be. Prove me wrong.

This is an easy hurdle, and I think you know it.

Simply put, if one is operating under the assumption that the government should benefit the people, freedom of religion is a necessity. This is inarguable.

Matthias

01-09-2010, 04:31 PM

This is an easy hurdle, and I think you know it.

Simply put, if one is operating under the assumption that the government should benefit the people, freedom of religion is a necessity. This is inarguable.

In my subjective opinion, the government would best benefit the people by making sure they all get to heaven, and should therefore enforce Christian tenets.

</Devil's (Angel's?) Advocate>

Should/ought implies subjectivity, and for many people, their subjective opinion is that everybody should be Christian. If everyone did practice Christianity, it would solve all the world's problems and everyone would love each other.

Panthera

01-09-2010, 04:34 PM

In my subjective opinion, the government would best benefit the people by making sure they all get to heaven, and should therefore enforce Christian tenets.

Should/ought implies subjectivity, and for many people, their subjective opinion is that everybody should be Christian. If everyone did practice Christianity, it would solve all the world's problems and everyone would love each other.

And objectively, unless we're talking about a thought experiment when everyone is suddenly the same religion, it can be shown that forced religion is the source of a great deal of oppression. Failing that, you've only got theological arguments to fall back on, all which rely on the long-discredited Pascal's Wager.

Matthias

01-09-2010, 04:40 PM

And objectively, unless we're talking about a thought experiment when everyone is suddenly the same religion, it can be shown that forced religion is the source of a great deal of oppression. Failing that, you've only got theological arguments to fall back on, all which rely on the long-discredited Pascal's Wager.

You're missing Ox's point, though. When he said "God ought to be in the government, prove me wrong" he was giving a subjective opinion. You can't prove those wrong.

Either way, there's a difference between religion being a part of the government (abolishing separation of church and state) and God himself actually coming down and taking a seat somewhere within our government. I have a feeling he'd be a lot more genuinely accepting (not to mention correct on issues) than anyone else we've had in any seat of government.

01-09-2010, 04:42 PM

I cannot believe that no one else challenged this. Obviously my evidence is anecdotal, but I know several homosexual couples and they cover the gamut of social classes and educational backgrounds. The majority of them own their own homes as well. I find it hard to believe that I somehow know some special group of homosexuals that is outside the norm.
That's my anecdotal experience as well. However, if you look at this study I cited earlier (http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/USReport.pdf), they point out that same-sex parents¹ earn $12,000 a year less than heterosexual couples. The other points are also drawn from that same study. I am of course willing to consider that this study might be flawed in some way or contradicted by other studies.

Simply put, if one is operating under the assumption that the government should benefit the people, freedom of religion is a necessity. This is inarguable.
I don't think you know me. Never claim something is inarguable in a thread I'm following. It's one of the classic blunders, like fighting a land war in Asia.

I'm very far from agreeing that government should benefit the people. But even if I were to accept such an absurd premise, I might point out that your existence on this Earth is unlikely to exceed 80 or so years. Whereas you'll spend the rest of eternity in the afterlife. What's more, the difference between the worst and the best Earthly existences are less than the differences between a day in Heaven and a day in Hell. If I want to work toward your benefit, obviously I should place infinitely more weight on your final destination than on whatever you experience here on Earth. I would be justified in inflicting the worst atrocities on you in life so long as they even marginally increased your chances of entering the Heavenly Kingdom.²

¹ Originally this read "same-sex couples." I double-checked the study and realized it was comparing same-sex parents to heterosexual parents.

² Historians may recognize this as the argument that justified the slave trade: by baptizing Africans, the slave traders supposedly did them such a kindness that enslaving them and shipping them to the Americas to defray the costs was still, on net, a generous act.

Panthera

01-09-2010, 05:19 PM

I'm very far from agreeing that government should benefit the people. But even if I were to accept such an absurd premise, I might point out that your existence on this Earth is unlikely to exceed 80 or so years. Whereas you'll spend the rest of eternity in the afterlife.

Pascal's wager. I can appreciate devil's advocate, but this is ridiculous.

edit: To clarify, I think devil's advocate without good backing is at best pointless provocation and an over-elaborate way to strawman your opponents. You've settled strongly on the former.

01-09-2010, 05:35 PM

Pascal's wager. I can appreciate devil's advocate, but this is ridiculous.

edit: To clarify, I think devil's advocate without good backing is at best pointless provocation and an over-elaborate way to strawman your opponents. You've settled strongly on the former.
Just to be clear: I laid out an argument. You declared it to be "ridiculous," said I lacked "good backing" (whatever that is), and announced I was being "pointlessly provocative". You also acquitted me of using an "over-elaborate way to strawman [my] opponents," which was nice of you. But ultimately, I presented an argument, whether good or bad, while you offered only insults.

Panthera

01-09-2010, 05:37 PM

Incorrect. I identified your argument as Pascal's Wager.

01-09-2010, 05:41 PM

First, identifying my argument as Pascal's Wager is at best taxonomy, not argument. Second, Pascal's Wager is not even correct taxonomy: Pascal assumed we were uncertain about God's existence. I am assuming God does exist.

Panthera

01-09-2010, 05:45 PM

01-09-2010, 05:51 PM

Pedantry. It's not identical, but it requires you to place infinitely more value on the afterlife and assume that you have reliable insight into the nature of the afterlife. That is not a reasonable assumption.
Again, you are both insulting and inaccurate. I don't really have to place infinitely more value on the afterlife, although that was one of my assumptions. I could make the same argument by saying that the afterlife has somewhat more value than life.

And while it's fascinating you think my assumptions are unreasonable, all that means is that you find my argument unconvincing. Do you agree it's possible for me to make arguments you find unpersuasive, or do you think arguments you don't like somehow don't qualify as "arguments"?

Matthias

01-09-2010, 05:52 PM

Pedantry. It's not identical, but it requires you to place infinitely more value on the afterlife and assume that you have reliable insight into the nature of the afterlife. That is not a reasonable assumption.

It is if you're Christian and extremely sure that there is a Christian God as well as heaven and hell. This is the case for much of the nation/the Bible Belt, who are the ones making the "God wills it to be so" argument against homosexuality, which is what we are discussing. To them, Pascal's wager is irrelevant because they believe they DO have reliable insight into the afterlife, or at least enough of it. Even though you and I may agree that they are incorrect and simply being homosexual does not guarrantee one a place in hell, that's the context we're discussing, right?

Panthera

01-09-2010, 06:00 PM

And while it's fascinating you think my assumptions are unreasonable, all that means is that you find my argument unconvincing. Do you agree it's possible for me to make arguments you find unpersuasive, or do you think arguments you don't like somehow don't qualify as "arguments"?

No, you are correct within your self-contained systems. My problem here is the relevance of them.

Dorkandproudofit

01-09-2010, 06:10 PM

Panthera, Just give up. Ox hasn't lost an argument since that incident with Chuck Norris back in '92, and Chuck had a hangover.

01-09-2010, 06:24 PM

No, you are correct within your self-contained systems. My problem here is the relevance of them.
Let me recap this discussion as I recall it:

johnperkins21 said (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=457334#post457334) that Congresscritters should not be allowed to vote unless they can justify their votes according to certain criteria. I objected (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=457408#post457408) to his suggested electoral reform, claiming his criteria were impossible to apply and were essentially a demand that nobody disagree with him on any issue of public policy. johnperkins21 responded (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=457427#post457427) that no argument against libertarianism could fulfill his criteria. I offered (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=457864&postcount=1757) "deus vult" as an example of an argument that was non-libertarian but still fulfilled his criteria. ShivaX stepped in (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=457875&postcount=1761) and declared that he found "deus vult" to be an unpersuasive argument. As I noted (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=457875&postcount=1761), this was neither here nor there: I didn't claim "deus vult" was persuasive, I claimed it seemed to fulfill johnperkins21's criteria (as best as I could understand them) and yet was non-libertarian.

ShivaX came back (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=457875&postcount=1761) by saying he still disagreed with "deus vult" and implied the libertarian assumption was somehow more objective or provable than the assumptions underpinning religion. I attempted to show (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=457875&postcount=1761) that libertarianism's assumptions were just as unprovable as any other belief system's.

You made a really bold (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458223&postcount=1777) claim that it was impossible to argue against secular government. I presented (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458239&postcount=1781) an argument, thus demonstrating you were wrong (the only actual logical demonstration that someone else was wrong for quite some time!). Rather than conceding you had overstated your point (which was irrelevant to the discussion anyway) or attempting to rebuke me, you chose to insult (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458250&postcount=1782) me. I noted (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458257&postcount=1783) this. We went back (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458258&postcount=1784) and forth (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458258&postcount=1785) on whether there was anything resembling an argument in your post. You insulted (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458258&postcount=1786) me again and declared that you found the anti-secularism argument unconvincing (thus implicitly conceding that you were wrong to declare said argument could not exist). I pointed this out (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458264&postcount=1787). Now you are saying (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458278&postcount=1789) the anti-secularism argument is irrelevant.

I think the above paragraphs, while perhaps difficult to follow, demonstrate the relevance (or lack thereof) of the anti-secularism argument: it demonstrates you were incorrect to declare that secular government was "inarguable." You should have said, "I think secular government is very good, and I find arguments against it to be unpersuasive." You'll undoubtedly critique me for playing devil's advocate, but I just wanted you to use the right word. Hopefully in the future you will try to choose your language with care. Unfortunately, what was an interesting (to me) discussion about electoral reform has now become a discussion about whether it's a good idea to use the word "inarguable."

nnanji

01-09-2010, 06:30 PM

You made a really bold (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458223&postcount=1777) claim that it was impossible to argue against secular government. I presented (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458239&postcount=1781) an argument, thus demonstrating you were wrong (the only actual logical demonstration that someone else was wrong for quite some time!). Rather than conceding you had overstated your point (which was irrelevant to the discussion anyway) or attempting to rebuke me, you chose to insult (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458250&postcount=1782) me. I noted (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458257&postcount=1783) this. We went back (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458258&postcount=1784) and forth (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458258&postcount=1785) on whether there was anything resembling an argument in your post. You insulted (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458258&postcount=1786) me again and declared that you found the anti-secularism argument unconvincing (thus implicitly conceding that you were wrong to declare said argument could not exist). I pointed this out (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458264&postcount=1787). Now you are saying (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=458278&postcount=1789) the anti-secularism argument is irrelevant.

This is the funniest damn thing I have read all day. It's good to have Ox back.

ShivaX

01-09-2010, 06:32 PM

Now in my defense I never claimed libertarianism was more objective or anything.

I just said my libertarian roots made me lean towards something.
I'm not claiming libertarianism or anything else is magically valid, its just a personal viewpoint.

Panthera

01-09-2010, 06:32 PM

You should have said, "I think secular government is very good, and I find arguments against it to be unpersuasive."

Was my implication really unclear? Is this a philosophy paper or a discussion?

torrefaction

01-09-2010, 06:35 PM

Was my implication really unclear? Is this a philosophy paper or a discussion?

From my perspective it was. When you use the word inarguable, you basically say there is no valid justification for the other person's perspective.

Now, I agree with your core premise, but wording is incredibly important.

Panthera

01-09-2010, 06:37 PM

From my perspective it was. When you use the word inarguable, you basically say there is no valid justification for the other person's perspective.

Now, I agree with your core premise, but wording is incredibly important.

Ox was being overly literal with the word 'inarguable' for reasons that aren't really clear to me. I find that strikingly disingenuous. "No valid justification" is, however, closer to my belief.

01-09-2010, 06:39 PM

Now in my defense I never claimed libertarianism was more objective or anything.
You didn't say so, but I inferred that you believed it was. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
Was my implication really unclear? Is this a philosophy paper or a discussion?
I have two basic choices when I read your posts: I can either take it at face value, or I can say to myself, "Panthera is pretty inarticulate, let me rephrase that post into something that makes some sort of freaking sense." As you can see, when I tried to infer what ShivaX really meant, I got it wrong. So I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

01-09-2010, 06:42 PM

"No valid justification" is, however, closer to my belief.
Okay. And now we're back to the discussion I was having with johnperkins21: does 'no valid justification' mean 'no argument I find persuasive'? If it does, fine. Otherwise, I don't know what you're saying.

Panthera

01-09-2010, 06:56 PM

Okay. And now we're back to the discussion I was having with johnperkins21: does 'no valid justification' mean 'no argument I find persuasive'? If it does, fine. Otherwise, I don't know what you're saying.

Is there an important difference between not finding an argument persuasive and believing it to be incorrect? I think you're splitting hairs and using formalized debate nomenclature when it isn't warranted.

01-09-2010, 07:08 PM

Is there an important difference between not finding an argument persuasive and believing it to be incorrect? I think you're splitting hairs and using formalized debate nomenclature when it isn't warranted.
Honestly, I was trying to figure out what you meant. Clearly you think there's no difference. Thanks for answering the question.

If you don't mind my asking: why did you bother telling (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=457879#post457879) us all that you found this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=457879#post457879) unpersuasive?

Panthera

01-09-2010, 07:13 PM

Honestly, I was trying to figure out what you meant. Clearly you think there's no difference. Thanks for answering the question.

If you don't mind my asking: why did you bother telling (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=457879#post457879) us all that you found this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=457879#post457879) unpersuasive?

Because I felt it was a comment worth responding to, because it's something I've heard argued before, and as something I feel strongly about, I figured it was worth heading off. What followed was mistaking pedantry for actual argument.

01-09-2010, 07:17 PM

Because I felt it was a comment worth responding to, because it's something I've heard argued before, and as something I feel strongly about, I figured it was worth heading off.
You understand I wasn't actually arguing against religious freedom, right? I was simply presenting such an argument because johnperkins21 and I were discussing how to classify different arguments, and obviously whenever you classify arguments, birds, or anything else, you hold up examples and say, "Now, what kind of argument/bird/etc. is this?"

What followed was mistaking pedantry for actual argument.
I'm sorry, is this the part where I'm supposed to angrily retort with another insult? I wasn't ready and I missed my cue. Hold on, let me do some stretches and we'll try again.

Panthera

01-09-2010, 07:19 PM

In other words, I realize that my response was only tangential to your original discussion.

01-09-2010, 07:20 PM

In other words, I realize that my response was only tangential to your original discussion.
You were actually responding to an argument that nobody had made. That's called a "strawman." Obviously I have no problem with tangential discussions, but calling people out over strawmen is not a very nice thing to do.

torrefaction

01-09-2010, 07:23 PM

May I suggest the tangent and back and forth end here?

Panthera

01-09-2010, 07:27 PM

It wasn't important that you were really making it or not. It was the argument itself that was the target of my attack.

With the right set of assumptions, you can make an argument for anything. That's what didn't impress me.

edit: I'm more than happy to end it.

johnperkins21

01-09-2010, 08:25 PM

It's going to take a week for me to figure out what I'm supposed to respond to, and another week to figure how to do it so that Ox doesn't yell at me.

nnanji

01-15-2010, 09:44 AM

There is a great article in the current Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957) titled The Conservative For Gay Marriage by Theodore Olson. Olson is the conservative lawyer who won Bush v. Gore and he is currently taking the case to overturn Prop 8.

I'm sure I'm not telling anyone here anything new, but here are a few quotes that jumped out at me when I read his piece.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.

And after citing precedents established in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas he goes on:

These decisions have generated controversy, of course, but they are decisions of the nation's highest court on which our clients are entitled to rely. If all citizens have a constitutional right to marry, if state laws that withdraw legal protections of gays and lesbians as a class are unconstitutional, and if private, intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constitution, there is very little left on which opponents of same-sex marriage can rely. As Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case, pointed out, "[W]hat [remaining] justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'?" He is right, of course. One might agree or not with these decisions, but even Justice Scalia has acknowledged that they lead in only one direction.

I just thought I'd point some eyes to this piece. It is too rare in this country that anyone is brave enough to stand up for their beliefs in spite of their party, and fight to do what they believe is right. Olson has generated a lot of flack from the right for this case, but hopefully his courageous and clear stance also encourages the many conservative voters who are not also members of the religious right to support him and his case.

Kelegacy

01-15-2010, 10:13 AM

I just thought I'd point some eyes to this piece. It is too rare in this country that anyone is brave enough to stand up for their beliefs in spite of their party, and fight to do what they believe is right. Olson has generated a lot of flack from the right for this case, but hopefully his courageous and clear stance also encourages the many conservative voters who are not also members of the religious right to support him and his case.

I don't even think it's a matter of his beliefs. He doesn't necessarily have to believe gay marriage is "right" in order to be for the legalization of it. It's about protecting the rights of all Americans, which should be protected by the Constitution. People actively trying to ban gays from being married are, in a way, being unAmerican, which is ironic.

Only Communists are against gay marriage.

nnanji

01-15-2010, 10:22 AM

I don't even think it's a matter of his beliefs. He doesn't necessarily have to believe gay marriage is "right" in order to be for the legalization of it. It's about protecting the rights of all Americans, which should be protected by the Constitution. People actively trying to ban gays from being married are, in a way, being unAmerican, which is ironic.

Only Communists are against gay marriage.

Maybe we're pronouncing potato differently. I do think it's about belief. When people mention belief, especially in the context of something like gay marriage, the immediate reaction is to think of religious belief. But there are also political, ethical, and historical beliefs which bear on the discussion too. This is a man who has spent his whole life fighting hard for his beliefs, and I think it's brave of him to continue to do so, even when his beliefs move him away from his typical political party.

Kelegacy

01-15-2010, 10:35 AM

Yeah, we're talking about the same thing--it was a semantical interpretation by myself. So yes, he is fighting for something he believes in. In this case, he believes everyone should be equal and enjoy the same protections under the Constitution. And I totally agree with him, both on a moral and Constitutional level. What he's doing is protecting peoples freedoms. Opponents have the freedom to disagree, but I don't think they should have the freedom to take away other peoples' freedoms.

What I must have been inferring was that you can be "for" something even if you don't believe it's "right"--like you said, ethically, politically, religiously etc. Like me and the right to bear arms. I don't believe every person needs to own a gun, and wish there were more restrictions in place, but I would never be okay with an outright ban on gun ownership. That's an example of not agreeing with a law or amendment, but I also don't want to take away anyone's Constitutional freedoms.

BlackPete

01-20-2010, 07:54 PM

I thought this was interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/cindy-mccain-noh8-photo-m_n_430004.html

On Wednesday, the NOH8 campaign protesting California's Proposition 8 announced a new high-profile Republican supporter: John McCain's wife, Cindy McCain.

Wonder what John thinks of this?

aVaKus

01-21-2010, 07:26 AM

If anyone is interested in how the trial is going, (since the Supreme Court decided to block the video from being put on youtube :() Courage Campaign (http://www.couragecampaign.org/) started this site (http://prop8trialtracker.com/) to let people know what's happening.

Ink Asylum

01-21-2010, 07:46 AM

I've read some liveblogging transcripts and at times it's like a bad internet forum debate. The arguments being used by the supporters of Prop 8 have ranged from "It's tradition," to "Religion says gays are bad," to the absurd "Gay men can't breastfeed." It's no wonder they tried to block public video of the trial. It'd make the supporters look ridiculous.

Generation ABXY

01-21-2010, 10:29 AM

"Gay men can't breastfeed."

...I'd never considered that.

I need to rethink my position entirely, now.

Ink Asylum

01-21-2010, 10:44 AM

I'm not even joking. That was really brought up during the trial. The idea being that since breastfeeding has health benefits for infants then a child being raised by gay men would miss out on them.

Of course, it wasn't brought up that in lesbian couples you have twice the number of boobs, so they should get marriage before straights.

Generation ABXY

01-21-2010, 10:49 AM

Wait, is this case about adoption rights or gay marriage? I mean, if it's only the latter, I don't really see the point of bringing it up (of course, the former is the only one that gives me the slightest pause)...

Ink Asylum

01-21-2010, 11:06 AM

It's about gay marriage. Much of the defense of Prop 8 in the trial has focused on how marriage is centered around child-rearing, thereby gays should be ineligible because of X, Y and Z that prove they either can't or shouldn't raise kids.

Panthera

01-21-2010, 11:09 AM

It's a good thing that people who aren't married never raise kids or have guardianship over them.

txshurricane

01-21-2010, 11:10 AM

LordDon

01-21-2010, 11:27 AM

Hey tx, you and Panthera said nearly the same thing. I, for one, am kind of creeped out.

Panthera

01-21-2010, 11:40 AM

No matter how much I wash the shame doesn't come off.

Generation ABXY

01-21-2010, 01:36 PM

Hey tx, you and Panthera said nearly the same thing. I, for one, am kind of creeped out.

Apocalypse in 3...2...

MagGnome

01-21-2010, 03:54 PM

This case simultaneously excites me and scares the shit out of me.

johnperkins21

01-21-2010, 04:30 PM

This case simultaneously excites me and scares the shit out of me.

There's a gay joke in there somewhere.

MagGnome

01-21-2010, 04:50 PM

There's a gay joke in there somewhere.

Your mom is a gay joke.

Kelegacy

01-21-2010, 05:17 PM

Your mom is a gay joke.

Yes, yes she is.

Dorkandproudofit

01-21-2010, 05:33 PM

No matter how much I wash the shame doesn't come off.

Try washing with lime juice. That gets everything out!

MagGnome

01-21-2010, 06:02 PM

Try washing with lime juice. That gets everything out!

Except lime stains, oddly enough.

Generation ABXY

01-27-2010, 07:14 PM

The State of the Union is only just starting now, but supposedly Obama's going to use it to call for an end to DADT...

MagGnome

01-27-2010, 07:17 PM

The State of the Union is only just starting now, but supposedly Obama's going to use it to call for an end to DADT...

Yeah, right. At this point I'm not holding my breath for any progress on DODT, DOMA, or any of those other anti-gay acronyms.

Besides, in his last State of the Union Obama promised to close Gitmo within a year, and yet it's still open.

BlackPete

02-03-2010, 12:23 PM

There's scared of the gays, and then there's REALLY scared of teh gheys.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123287737

BLOCK: You are not in favor of a repeal of dont ask, dont tell. Why not?

Rep. HUNTER: No, because I think that its bad for the cohesiveness and the unity of the military units, especially those that are in close combat, that are in close quarters in country right now. Its not the time to do it. I think its - the military is not civilian life. And I think the folks who have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. And I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians.

BLOCK: Transgenders and hermaphrodites.

Can you hear the sound of pure terror in the voice in the audio clip? Totally bizarre.

Then again fear has never been a rational thing.

Ink Asylum

02-03-2010, 12:33 PM

Regarding DADT, Mr. StraightTalk: (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/for-the-record.html)

"The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position," - McCain, yesterday.

“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen," Colin Powell, today.

McCain used to say he'd support what the military leaders supported on DADT. As top military leaders this week came out supporting a repeal of DADT he pivoted to the military leaders from the Clinton era, like Powell, who a day later came out against DADT as well. Poor McCain. He's afraid to support repeal but he's running out of excuses.

Panthera

02-03-2010, 12:34 PM

Maybe he's terrified because he realizes how stupid what he's about to say is going to sound.

America's Greatest Threat: Hermaphrodites.

ShivaX

02-03-2010, 01:10 PM

Maybe he's terrified because he realizes how stupid what he's about to say is going to sound.

America's Greatest Threat: Hermaphrodites.

Well, that and having to deal with going home after opposing it without a good reason.

MagGnome

02-03-2010, 04:29 PM

Oh no, not the hermaphrodites?

Are they the big concern now? These people need to get a life. If even 1/4 of the time, energy, and money spent fighting gay rights was instead used to help the poor (you know, like Jesus tried to set an example of) it would do wonders. Instead, we have raving lunatics screaming and crying about the gays and now hermaphrodites.

It's pathetic.

I realize that someone is going to try to tear up what I just wrote, but please know that I'm tired, hungry, and sick to death of reading these same stupid arguments over and over again.

mightbe

02-03-2010, 04:42 PM

Oh no, not the hermaphrodites?

Are they the big concern now? These people need to get a life. If even 1/4 of the time, energy, and money spent fighting gay rights was instead used to help the poor (you know, like Jesus tried to set an example of) it would do wonders. Instead, we have raving lunatics screaming and crying about the gays and now hermaphrodites.
THESE PEOPLE MAG?

In all seriousness, we should stop declaring war on gays and start spending those resources fighting something we can win.

Such as the war on drugs. Or terror.

MagGnome

02-03-2010, 04:50 PM

THESE PEOPLE MAG?

In all seriousness, we should stop declaring war on gays and start spending those resources fighting something we can win.

Such as the war on drugs. Or terror.

You caught me there, although I was being facetious. :p

The War on Drugs and the War on Terror are just as useless as the War on Gays.

BlackPete

02-03-2010, 05:29 PM

It's such a bizarre concept to me... I can't comprehend what it's like to be living in a state of constant fear. WAR! 9/11! GAYS! DRUGS! TERROR! WHORISH FACES!

MagGnome

02-03-2010, 06:31 PM

It's such a bizarre concept to me... I can't comprehend what it's like to be living in a state of constant fear. WAR! 9/11! GAYS! DRUGS! TERROR! WHORISH FACES!

It's ridiculous. Thankfully the 9/11 fearmongering has died down considerably since George left office.

I had to laugh at your last example. :D

ShivaX

02-04-2010, 05:08 PM

McCain used to say he'd support what the military leaders supported on DADT. As top military leaders this week came out supporting a repeal of DADT he pivoted to the military leaders from the Clinton era, like Powell, who a day later came out against DADT as well. Poor McCain. He's afraid to support repeal but he's running out of excuses.

Yet he still went with an excuse and called for not repealing it while basically talking down to the military leaders that said it should be repealed. I seriously fucking hate McCain anymore, which is pretty sad.

Ink Asylum

02-12-2010, 01:42 PM

A brilliant video showing just how ridiculous the current inequality is:

V5t233AUh8s

There's one couple that's done everything right, everything that society believes is the foundation of a strong family in America. Kids, grandkids, a loving partnership, a home, community involvement, patriotism. The only thing they lack is the normal male/female gender dynamic. So no marriage for them.

But were she to walk in with none of those things except someone with the opposite gender, someone she has just met, no problem, here's your marriage certificate.

National Kato

02-12-2010, 01:51 PM

What a fucking disgrace. An absolute disgrace. I'm certain we'll get past this inequality in time, but for now I can only feel sympathy and anger.

Ink Asylum

02-12-2010, 01:53 PM

I'm embarassed that the video is from my home state. We were so fucking close to getting rid of that stupid discrimination.

Generation ABXY

02-12-2010, 04:23 PM

A brilliant video showing just how ridiculous the current inequality is:

V5t233AUh8s

Essentially the same point that senator (I think that's what she was, anyway) was trying to make. Shame it's not really getting through to some people.

In the meantime, who wants in on the ground floor of Come Swap, my inter-couple matchmaking site?

National Kato

02-12-2010, 09:33 PM

In the meantime, who wants in on the ground floor of Come Swap, my inter-couple matchmaking site?

I'm willing to be a subscriber, but I ain't participatin'. :D

MagGnome

02-13-2010, 10:25 AM

Wait, you are calling your dating site "Come Swap"?

Erm...

Dorkandproudofit

02-13-2010, 10:43 AM

Wait, you are calling your dating site "Come Swap"?

Erm...

At least it's not that poop swap that we talked too much about on EvAv.

Generation ABXY

02-13-2010, 11:46 AM

Wait, you are calling your dating site "Come Swap"?

Erm...

Welcome to the world of double entendres, Mags. ;)

MagGnome

02-13-2010, 05:39 PM

At least it's not that poop swap that we talked too much about on EvAv.

The what? I must have blocked that particular memory, thankfully.

Welcome to the world of double entendres, Mags. ;)

I guess I'll just rub my head and nod.

Dorkandproudofit

02-14-2010, 05:21 PM

The what? I must have blocked that particular memory, thankfully.

Here's a reminder:

))<>((

MagGnome

02-14-2010, 06:34 PM

Wait, is that two girls, one cup?

:eek:

Generation ABXY

02-14-2010, 07:58 PM

Four parentheses and a couple of relational operators, actually. And I don't know the thread either.

Dorkandproudofit

02-14-2010, 08:11 PM

I don't remember the thread either, but it was a fairly big meme back on EvAv. It's supposed to be someone pooping into someone else's butt, and vice versa, going back and forth.

The things this community comes up with... :p

Generation ABXY

02-14-2010, 08:28 PM

Oh, sweet Jesus, I haven't even seen and yet and I don't think I'll be able to unsee it! O_o

MagGnome

02-14-2010, 08:34 PM

I spent a LOT of time on Evil Avatar, yet I don't recall that meme at all. Ugh, thanks a lot Dork.

Generation ABXY

02-16-2010, 04:19 PM

wVeGUSGkhfw

You know, for a bit of levity...

ShivaX

02-16-2010, 05:08 PM

wVeGUSGkhfw

You know, for a bit of levity...

File their Goddamn taxes together.

MagGnome

02-16-2010, 07:23 PM

You know, for a bit of levity...

First of all, that thing about Shia Lebouef (or however you spell it) at the end was hilarious!

Thanks for posting that. As a resident of Minnesota myself, I'm a firm supporter of this bill. It's the first time that Tim Pawlenty and myself have seen eye to eye on anything. Hopefully the money saved with be used to fund mass transit (ha!).

That may have actually been shot at the state capitol, although I imagine that they just edit various footage together with some actors over a green screen.

Ink Asylum

02-22-2010, 12:14 PM

For the first time in a CNN/Times poll, more people say that homosexual relationships are not a moral issue as opposed to being morally wrong, a 5 point jump from six years ago. (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/22/rel4n.pdf) Specifically, 48% say it's wrong, 50% say it's not an issue, 2% undecided.

It's been a slow process, but it's nice to know that things are headed in the right direction.

Dorkandproudofit

02-22-2010, 03:25 PM

02-22-2010, 05:36 PM

Huh. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/homophobic-cpac-speaker-booed-off-the-stage/)

BlackPete

02-22-2010, 05:39 PM

California Young Republicans for Freedom? Ugh, thanks to these douchebags I'm actually starting to hate the word "freedom" because it's been so distorted these days.

Generation ABXY

02-22-2010, 06:36 PM

Huh. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/homophobic-cpac-speaker-booed-off-the-stage/)

You must not spend enough time at liberal blogs - clearly the whole thing was staged. :p

02-22-2010, 10:08 PM

Please tell me they have a slightly better analysis than that. That's actually below claiming it was 'shopped.

torrefaction

02-23-2010, 02:05 PM

California Young Republicans for Freedom? Ugh, thanks to these douchebags I'm actually starting to hate the word "freedom" because it's been so distorted these days.

What? That makes me really happy, the way it played out. It makes me feel like maybe a lot of younger conservatives ideals fall more in-line with where I'd hope.

People tend to be more conservative as they get older too, so maybe there's hope for the party yet.

National Kato

03-04-2010, 02:10 PM

Matthias

03-04-2010, 02:16 PM

Some promising news today from Sen. John Kerry and 17 other Senators (but no Republicans). (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/22740841/detail.html?hpt=T2)

Let's hope we can move past this ridiculous holdover from the 80s.

Wow, I wasn't even aware that ban still existed. Agreed, let's hope it passes without interference.

aVaKus

03-04-2010, 02:52 PM

cppcrusader

03-04-2010, 03:24 PM

Wow, I wasn't even aware that ban still existed. Agreed, let's hope it passes without interference.

Considering they had one person vote against the debarking ban (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=16043) I'm betting that won't happen.

MagGnome

03-04-2010, 04:16 PM

The legal firm that I work at has blood drives all the time and I'm constantly hounded by coworkers to donate blood (something I would be more than happy to do) ,but I'm not allowed. Some of the looks I've gotten when I told them why have been priceless.

I've been in the same situation several times before. However, I'm deathly afraid of needles, so I sort of appreciated the excuse. :o

Considering they had one person vote against the debarking ban (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=16043) I'm betting that won't happen.

People surgically remove a dog's ability to bark? That's so sad. :(

ShivaX

07-06-2010, 09:21 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_hawaii_civil_unions

HONOLULU – Hawaii's governor on Tuesday vetoed legislation that would have permitted same-sex civil unions, ending months of speculation on how she would weigh in on the contentious, emotional debate.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle's action came on the final day she had to either sign or veto the bill, which the Hawaii Legislature approved in late April.

"There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage," Lingle said at a news conference. "I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-gender marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially marriage by another name."

Its not so much that marriage is sacred, I just really hate queers.

Kelegacy

07-06-2010, 09:29 PM

The institution of marriage is a joke. Daily or weekly our local newspapers announces recent divorces, and my wife read them aloud on Sunday or Monday and noticed how many were under a year. Funny how not serious we take marriage but always talk about it's sanctity. Those politicians who are against it and are found to be either gay or cheating on their wives...so sacred. So sacred.

TheEpicOfTyler

07-06-2010, 10:57 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_hawaii_civil_unions

Its not so much that marriage is sacred, I just really hate queers.

It blows my mind that someone had to consider this issue so deeply, above other things that government has on it's plate these days. What a worthless governor.

Don't like same sex marriage? Don't get one. Has anyone made a post about the ramifications of allowing same sex marriage? Are there any besides making homosexual people happy?

johnperkins21

07-06-2010, 11:56 PM

Don't like same sex marriage? Don't get one. Has anyone made a post about the ramifications of allowing same sex marriage? Are there any besides making homosexual people happy?

Back at EvAv, Johan posted a link to an article where one woman claimed that allowing same-sex marriage would decrease heterosexual marriage by de-valuing it in their eyes. I can't find the article after a quick Google search, but that's pretty much the only argument I've heard that isn't directly religious-based.

Doogie2K

07-07-2010, 12:35 AM

Back at EvAv, Johan posted a link to an article where one woman claimed that allowing same-sex marriage would decrease heterosexual marriage by de-valuing it in their eyes. I can't find the article after a quick Google search, but that's pretty much the only argument I've heard that isn't directly religious-based.

I love the logic that your own marriage is somehow lesser because the homos are getting in on the act.

Because clearly, we heteros have done such a bang-up job of keeping the thing sacred and valuable to this point in history.

AversionFX

07-07-2010, 02:04 AM

Back at EvAv, Johan posted a link

Oh, that guy. That guy occupies the same spaces in my vernacular as all of the most atrocious and vile words I know. He's a total piece of shit, is what I'm saying.

The thing that makes me most sad about the topic of gay marriage, is twofold. First, the institution of marriage is so tainted. Regularly, you see and hear couples getting divorced, sometimes after a few days, so obviously marriage isn't "sacred." Secondly, the information being spread about it is just so blatantly homophobic and ignorant.

Why do people care so damn much about the goings-on of people they don't even know? I don't lose any sleep, and it's not going to degrade my marriage (thursday! squee!) by letting homosexual couples live their lives. For all of this bullshit "freedom" that Americans spout, we sure are completely fucking ignorant and hypocritical.

boratika

07-07-2010, 02:32 AM

I've been in the same situation several times before. However, I'm deathly afraid of needles, so I sort of appreciated the excuse. :o

"Oh yeah, I totally would if I could. It just these outdated, discriminatory laws, I tell you. It's a... er... an outrage. Yeah, that's what it is." *shifty eyes*

Deadend

07-07-2010, 02:38 AM

Oh, that guy. That guy occupies the same spaces in my vernacular as all of the most atrocious and vile words I know. He's a total piece of shit, is what I'm saying.

The thing that makes me most sad about the topic of gay marriage, is twofold. First, the institution of marriage is so tainted. Regularly, you see and hear couples getting divorced, sometimes after a few days, so obviously marriage isn't "sacred." Secondly, the information being spread about it is just so blatantly homophobic and ignorant.

Why do people care so damn much about the goings-on of people they don't even know? I don't lose any sleep, and it's not going to degrade my marriage (thursday! squee!) by letting homosexual couples live their lives. For all of this bullshit "freedom" that Americans spout, we sure are completely fucking ignorant and hypocritical.
Small minded assholes fear change. They also like to scream that they should do what they wanna do, but that other people shouldn't be able to.

Johnan always impressed me by how he managed to have such complicated views that an observer would assume he was full of shit, or playing a joke.

I feel like the only way progress will be made is via a major demographic change. Since I doubt some people will change their minds, then it looks like progress will have to wait until people die. It's the fun thing about progressive ideas, they tend to grow more popular over time, just that gay marriage is taking a long time and leads to awkward moments.
"So, I don't hate gay people.. but I don't want to see them married." which really doesn't make sense.

MagGnome

07-07-2010, 06:37 AM

Oh, that guy. That guy occupies the same spaces in my vernacular as all of the most atrocious and vile words I know. He's a total piece of shit, is what I'm saying.

The thing that makes me most sad about the topic of gay marriage, is twofold. First, the institution of marriage is so tainted. Regularly, you see and hear couples getting divorced, sometimes after a few days, so obviously marriage isn't "sacred." Secondly, the information being spread about it is just so blatantly homophobic and ignorant.

Why do people care so damn much about the goings-on of people they don't even know? I don't lose any sleep, and it's not going to degrade my marriage (thursday! squee!) by letting homosexual couples live their lives. For all of this bullshit "freedom" that Americans spout, we sure are completely fucking ignorant and hypocritical.

Congratulations on your marriage. May it be a long, happy union. :)

As for the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more.

I don't lose sleep over heteros getting married, and it boggles my mind that so many people lose sleep over the thought that I might one day marry another man. OH NO!!!

"Oh yeah, I totally would if I could. It just these outdated, discriminatory laws, I tell you. It's a... er... an outrage. Yeah, that's what it is." *shifty eyes*

Pretty much! :o

Shrinn

07-07-2010, 09:28 AM

I love the logic that your own marriage is somehow lesser because the homos are getting in on the act.

Because clearly, we heteros have done such a bang-up job of keeping the thing sacred and valuable to this point in history.

Well, the logic supposedly makes sense. Once divorces became a lot easier, marriages became less of a big deal because "hey, we can just get divorced if it doesn't work!". Just like how now that abortion is legal there's a lot more abortions. So if the straight marriage doesn't work out, they can just get gay married.

Wait, that doesn't make sense at all.

Kelegacy

07-07-2010, 11:01 AM

If homosexuals ever get to marry in Maine (our voters thankfully stopped that from happening in 2009) I'm divorcing my wife because I instantly won't love her anymore and it would be pointless to stay married.

I still think most people against gay marriage are gay themselves. They might just not know it yet. Years of trying to keep it hidden and conform to societal norms and brainwashing one's self.

ShivaX

07-08-2010, 07:02 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100708/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_benefits

Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

BOSTON – The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote.

Of course it wouldn't be complete without these guys:
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters consistently have rejected gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.

"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.

Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the rulings result in part from "the deliberately weak legal defense of DOMA" that the Obama administration mounted on behalf of the government.

"While the American people have made it unmistakably clear that they want to preserve marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, liberals and activist judges are not content to let the people decide," McClusky said in a statement.

Shieldmaiden

07-08-2010, 07:20 PM

I felt a rare swelling of national pride upon reading this story. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10180564.stm)

Generation ABXY

07-08-2010, 08:32 PM

I thought Iran didn't have any gays...

boratika

07-09-2010, 05:34 AM

I felt a rare swelling of national pride upon reading this story. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10180564.stm)

They had earlier been refused asylum on the grounds they could hide their sexuality by behaving discreetly.

Because if there is one thing gay men are know for, it is acting discretely.

But, yeah, do I get to feel swelling national pride if I'm a dual cit'zen and don't live there?

Shieldmaiden

07-09-2010, 05:54 AM

Because if there is one thing gay men are know for, it is acting discretely.

But, yeah, do I get to feel swelling national pride if I'm a dual cit'zen and don't live there?

Wait, you're a British/Autralian dual national?

boratika

07-09-2010, 09:10 AM

Wait, you're a British/Autralian dual national?

That I am. Admittedly, not a very good one - I've only spent a month in the UK and that was before I even got my cit'zenship.

But on paper I am totally a pale, pasty, crooked toothed, tea drinking, fish and chip eating, whinging, socks with sandals wearing, bad food eating, knife stabberising, bowlerhat wearing, no sex thank youing, imperial and metric mix and matching pom. ;)

It's on account of my mum was born in Wales before year x and I was born between year y and year z. I forget the specifics. I just filled out the paper work and paid the fee.

Actually, I tend to wear a flat cap, rather than a bowler, but that's good enough.

Shieldmaiden

07-09-2010, 09:24 AM

That I am. Admittedly, not a very good one - I've only spent a month in the UK and that was before I even got my cit'zenship.

But on paper I am totally a pale, pasty, crooked toothed, tea drinking, fish and chip eating, whinging, socks with sandals wearing, bad food eating, knife stabberising, bowlerhat wearing, no sex thank youing, imperial and metric mix and matching pom. ;)

It's on account of my mum was born in Wales before year x and I was born between year y and year z. I forget the specifics. I just filled out the paper work and paid the fee.

Actually, I tend to wear a flat cap, rather than a bowler, but that's good enough.

That's awesome. My father is Australian, I was conceived there and spent a few months there as a baby, but haven't been back since. I have a little piece of paper that confirms that I'm a lager-swilling, kangaroo-boxing, crocodile-wrestling, bad soap-watching, random slang-inventing, shrimp on the barbie-chucking, cork hat-wearing, violent no-rules rugby-playing Ozzie.

07-09-2010, 11:56 AM

Wait wait wait. Is a Brit mocking an Aussie for watching bad soap operas? This from the land of EastEnders and an incredibly strange late '90s obsession with Sunset Beach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Beach_(TV_series))?

I know you'll point out that Sunset Beach is an American program by origin and setting, and fair enough: we will burn for our sins. But you guys for some reason syndicated it and loved it, which we never did. Let me be clear: this is a program in which a Catholic priest has an illicit affair with his brother's wife, then prays to God for guidance. And God answers his prayer (in a Californian accent) by telling him to go on with the affair. And this plotline doesn't even qualify for inclusion in the "Outrageous storylines" section of the wiki entry.

No. No. You Brits have no basis for accusing anyone of liking bad soap operas.

Narradisall

07-09-2010, 12:20 PM

It's on account of my mum was born in Wales before

Wales counts as part of the country? :p

Narradisall

07-09-2010, 12:21 PM

No. No. You Brits have no basis for accusing anyone of liking bad soap operas.

I've seen some American 'soaps', so shhh you. :)

MagGnome

07-09-2010, 05:05 PM

DOMA was finally (FINALLY!) overturned (hopefully) and all you guys can talk about are soap operas?

So when are you guys getting married? :p

boratika

07-10-2010, 03:14 AM

Yeah, Australian soaps are like Fosters. Almost no domestic market for them, but the Brits sure seem to love them for some reason.

Wales counts as part of the country? :p

Hey, you went in an claimed it. It's your responsibility now.

DOMA was finally (FINALLY!) overturned (hopefully) and all you guys can talk about are soap operas?

So when it's you derailing threads relevant to other people, it's one thing, but when it's a thread relevant to you getting derailed, well, that's just completely different. :p

So when are you guys getting married? :p

Well, I'll to move to the land of my other cit'zenship for that. Well, for a civil partnering, anyway. At least I can have a gay de facto here now.

Even so, I'm guessing not any time too soon.

MagGnome

07-10-2010, 08:42 AM

So when it's you derailing threads relevant to other people, it's one thing, but when it's a thread relevant to you getting derailed, well, that's just completely different. :p

That's libel! I have never once derailed a thread. How dare you! :mad:

MagGnome

07-24-2010, 10:29 AM

This video is priceless:

948bepqoF04

:D

roboninja

07-24-2010, 10:44 AM

I'm of the opinion that if you are a member of an organization called the Traditional Values Coalition, or the Family Research Council, I am just going to ignore what you say.

MagGnome

07-24-2010, 11:13 AM

What if you are a member of NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM? :D

aVaKus

08-03-2010, 10:42 PM

Ruling Wednesday. (fingers crossed) (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/08/prop-8-decision-due-tomorrow.html)

National Kato

08-04-2010, 02:45 PM

Twitter feeds are 'asploding: Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional!

Ink Asylum

08-04-2010, 02:58 PM

A quote from the ruling. (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/08/eek-the-prop8-decision-is-here.html)

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

There will doubtless be appeals, but while that happens gays can once again get married in California.

National Kato

08-04-2010, 03:35 PM

There will doubtless be appeals, but while that happens gays can once again get married in California.

Not quite yet, unfortunately.

A stay was filed ahead of the ruling (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15675497?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1), as supporters of Prop 8 stated:

"A stay is essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California."

Full ruling on Prop 8 is here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL), for those interested in reading it.

Either way, this is great news and a strong win for equal rights and due process.

fitbabits

08-04-2010, 03:35 PM

A good day!

National Kato

08-04-2010, 03:43 PM

CNN breaks down a good Q&A (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/prop.8.next/index.html?hpt=T1) about what to expect next and how things might work in the interim between today and any appeal with the 9th Circuit.

Also, it appears that while a stay was filed, the judge has time to rule on it and that could take weeks.

My 63-year old lesbian mother also got a job today. So, a good day for me all around. :D

Karmakin

08-04-2010, 03:46 PM

From the text of the ruling I'm seeing, I'm not sure that the stay will be granted. I haven't heard anywhere that it was.

And yes, a very good day.

DoctorFinger

08-04-2010, 04:11 PM

The stay was granted from what I've read.

National Kato

08-04-2010, 04:15 PM

More on the stay. (http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/state-cant-enforce-prop-8-stay-issued/) Looks like we'll need to wait a bit to hear for sure.

Kelegacy

08-04-2010, 05:55 PM

I saw this a bit before leaving work today and was truly elated. People at my work didn't share my level of enthusiasm though.

I honestly don't think this would ever pass the Supreme Court, however. Not with a predominantly conservative group. It would probably be split down the line unfortunately.

National Kato

08-04-2010, 06:05 PM

Some say right now Kennedy would be the 'swing vote.' But we still have a Justice left to appoint this year or next.

OldJadedGamer

08-04-2010, 08:51 PM

Glad this passed, now gays can ruin the experience of marriage just like straight people can. Speaking from a kid of divorce of course.

Thanasimos

08-04-2010, 09:51 PM

fitbabits

08-04-2010, 10:12 PM

I don't think the Supreme Court will hear this case at all. Rather, I believe they'll simply punt it back to the states to deal with. What that means, I'm not entirely sure.

TheEpicOfTyler

08-04-2010, 10:44 PM

OldJadedGamer

08-04-2010, 10:49 PM

Probably, but does that mean everyone that is straight is bias against gay marriage? Has the judge in question ever aired his opinion on gay marriage? He could be a guy who wants marriage to disappear in general for all I know.

This is what I was thinking. If the judge was straight it's bias the other way. It's a weak argument.

johnperkins21

08-04-2010, 11:16 PM

This is what I was thinking. If the judge was straight it's bias the other way. It's a weak argument.

So was the argument for Prop 8 and any argument against allowing gay marriage. That doesn't stop people from using it.

Kelegacy

08-05-2010, 05:20 AM

Are we sure Walker is gay? I didn't think he was. He didn't wear a pink judge-coat or anything, so I couldn't tell.

Though he IS Republican, so I wouldn't be surprised if true.

No, the reason it was overturned so easily is that the Prop 8 team couldn't defend themselves or prove their arguments. Their tactics are to say untruths like gay marriage will make kids gay and other fear mongering. It didn't help that the Governor and the counsel that they THOUGHT would represent them both backed away and left the Prop 8 team to hire their own.

And they only called two witnesses. They didn't think they had to prove anything. Meanwhile the other side brought their A game.

Ink Asylum

08-05-2010, 06:15 AM

This is what I was thinking. If the judge was straight it's bias the other way. It's a weak argument.

Didn't you know that straight, white males can never be biased?

Shieldmaiden

08-05-2010, 06:24 AM

Didn't you know that straight, white males are THE DEVIL, live charmed lives and never suffer from any kind of prejudice or stereotyping.

Corrected that for you. ;)

Khrymsyn

08-05-2010, 07:05 AM

The part that really confuses me about all of this is... the party considered primarily responsible for not wanting gay marriages, is the same party that at ONE time, used to profess to "keep government and business out of our homes"...
A bit hypocritical, no?

bah.

National Kato

08-05-2010, 07:56 AM

A short list of some of the 1,138 Benefits of Marriage (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html):
"Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

Creating a 'family partnership' under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.

Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.

Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.'

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family."

It's more than just a fight over social narrative or terminology. It's a fight over real and practical rights and tools.

Kelegacy

08-05-2010, 08:40 AM

Hell, while we're discussing making marriage better across the board (letting gays enjoy/endure it too), I havea great idea for making marriage even better. Appoint me the Marriage Czar and I'll revamp it.

Marriages should be like sports contracts--you sign up for a given amount of years initially and at the end of that contract you get the option to resign or perhaps even negotiate a better deal within that marriage. More sex, for example, or make sure your wife stays a certain size (otherwise breaching the contract). Or, you can be released into the free agency pool and go on your way. Your contract is fulfilled.

Divorces wouldn't happen as often because you could say, "Well, I only have another year in this contract so I guess I'll ride it out even if it's a pain."

Shieldmaiden

08-05-2010, 08:50 AM

National Kato

08-05-2010, 09:28 AM

Marriages should be like sports contracts--

So you basically would turn marriage into dating. Groundbreaking. ;)

Kelegacy

08-05-2010, 09:49 AM

So you basically would turn marriage into dating. Groundbreaking. ;)

Well, it would keep people on their toes. No more wives getting fat and lazy and using sex as a weapon, only to get divorced and they get lose weight and get hot and slutty again out of retribution as they try to find another man. Because if you don't hold to the terms of your contract, you may find yourself out of a relationship in a couple years. :)

It would really suck if your wife or husband wanted to leave but you want them to stay. So...you can try to negotiate with them, make a sweet deal. Like weekly anal or something.

08-05-2010, 10:37 AM

I'm kind of curious why you think 'divorce' is bad but 'going free agent' is fine. Not to mention it's not clear why spouses would be any less likely to act selfishly.

Anyway, courts have long refused to enforce contracts stipulating a particular amount or type of sexual activity. They don't really want to hold evidentiary hearings on how often people fuck.

OldJadedGamer

08-05-2010, 10:41 AM

I think the only people who should be able to argue against gay marriage should be people who have never had a divorce on their own or been a part of divorce in their family.

08-05-2010, 11:05 AM

Kelegacy

08-05-2010, 11:33 AM

I'm kind of curious why you think 'divorce' is bad but 'going free agent' is fine. Not to mention it's not clear why spouses would be any less likely to act selfishly.

I don't personally feel that way, at least not now while in a solid marriage. Divorce has negative connotations, but "I let my contract expire" sounds nicer. Maybe.

And the settlements after contracts have ended without breach would be something I'd have to look into as czar--but I'm still of the mind for 50% of funds and possessions acquired while in the marriage, but no restitution/alimony unless there IS a breach...and that all has to do with stipulations in the original contract agreement.

I have enough on my plate right now, but given a full time, high paying position in the federal or local government, I would have the time to solve the marriage crisis and work out more of the kinks.

johnperkins21

08-05-2010, 12:08 PM

I think anyone who suggests that only certain people are entitled to have an opinion should not be allowed to have any opinions at all.

Brilliant! That should be a sig.

evilgoodwin

08-05-2010, 12:31 PM

DoctorFinger

08-05-2010, 12:55 PM

I'm fine with gay marriage, but I'll be damned if there will ever be gay divorce. That's a bridge too far.

MagGnome

08-05-2010, 01:34 PM

What is a brisge? :p

I'm taking proposals now. Of course there is a certain resident of California I would marry in a heartbeat. <3

DoctorFinger

08-05-2010, 02:33 PM

What is a brisge? :p

I'm taking proposals now. Of course there is a certain resident of California I would marry in a heartbeat. <3

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/perez-hilton.jpg

OldJadedGamer

08-05-2010, 02:33 PM

I think anyone who suggests that only certain people are entitled to have an opinion should not be allowed to have any opinions at all. It's one thing to criticize an opinion as flawed, it's another to engage in ad hominem or tu quoque asininity.

This, in particular, is profoundly dumb. I don't oppose gay marriage, but the notion that my parents' divorce - an event I was not consulted on and opposed at the time - somehow restricts me from having a given opinion or renders any opinion I might have less valid? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Because being a child of divorce you grew up in a home that didn't support the true values of marriage and you don't have first hand experience of what a real marriage is. Till death due us part.

My point is that it's stupid to argue against gay marriage anyway because straight marriage is a sham that isn't taken seriously in this country anyway.

Let the gays get married. Who cares. It's not like the straights are taking it seriously. Growing up in the midwest, I see marriage as something people feel they *need* to do if they are ready or not or if the person they are with is the right one or not. Too many people settle before they are ready which is why we have such a high divorce rate.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

National Kato

08-05-2010, 02:50 PM

Let the gays get married. Who cares. It's not like the straights are taking it seriously.

I dislike this reasoning because it seems to say that if straights were taking marriage seriously, then there'd be no problem preventing homosexuals from having equal rights.

This issue has everything to do with equality, not whether marriage is being taken seriously by those who can.

Generation ABXY

08-05-2010, 03:03 PM

DoctorFinger

08-05-2010, 03:27 PM

The classical reasons for marriage have collapsed: promoting procreation, promoting a stable family structure for those offspring, and to provide a clear inheritance line for those offspring. Point 1 really isn't an issue with the population we have now, point 2 is moot in this age of rampant divorce, and point 3 applies just as much to gay unions as traditional marriage.

fitbabits

08-05-2010, 03:36 PM

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/perez-hilton.jpg
Ugh... I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

OldJadedGamer

08-05-2010, 04:02 PM

I dislike this reasoning because it seems to say that if straights were taking marriage seriously, then there'd be no problem preventing homosexuals from having equal rights.

This issue has everything to do with equality, not whether marriage is being taken seriously by those who can.

Oh, it's not reasoning. I'm just making a goof out of the whole thing since the whole debate is stupid. Arguing against gay rights in any form is just ignorance. I don't think gays should marry. I don't think that women should be able to vote either. I don't think that black folk should be allowed in restaurants.

I think that only straight white males should have rights and everyone else should be treated like a second class citizen.

08-05-2010, 05:51 PM

Because being a child of divorce you grew up in a home that didn't support the true values of marriage and you don't have first hand experience of what a real marriage is. Till death due us part.
You're right. I lack first-hand knowledge of what "a real marriage" is (although I might point out that even growing up in the home of a lovingly-married couple would impart a secondhand knowledge of marriage at the very best). And if you wanted to suggest this lack of first-hand knowledge implied an inability to comprehend the import of marriage, I would acknowledge that that would be an argument. A pretty ridiculous argument, but an argument.

But of course that's not what you claim. You claim not merely that my hypothetical opposition to gay marriage would be founded on ignorance, but that I am not entitled to oppose gay marriage. And you do not do this because of my experience or lack thereof; after all, if personal experience with a loving marriage were necessary to have an informed view on the issue, then you would equally discount my support for gay marriage. No, you attempt to disqualify certain classes of people from even holding opinions for the same reason everyone has always claimed certain classes of people are ineligible to hold certain opinions. Unable to rely upon the rigor of your reasoning and unwilling to depend upon the justice of your cause, you refuse to join the affray of debate on the issues of the day and instead cravenly seek to disqualify your opponents from even entering the ring. Yours is the cowardice of the unthinking boob, the fainthearted faith of the fairweather friend, and of all your bleats about bigotry, I've never seen even the most incorrigible homophobe suggest that gay people or anyone else is inherently incapable of holding an opinion or presenting an argument that warrants consideration.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
A Biblical reference. Let me retort with one of my own. 'The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.'

Bone

08-05-2010, 06:02 PM

A Biblical reference. Let me retort with one of my own. 'The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.'Yet what are the odds it was modern Christians who've made it so difficult to put children to death for their sins? Terribly inconsistent, the lot of them. The old God may have been angry, but he kept you on your toes and I can respect that.

OldJadedGamer

08-05-2010, 06:07 PM

Ox, you are missing everything I'm even saying. Everything I'm saying is bullshit because the whole "debate" about gay marriage in the first place is bullshit.

It's all about equal rights, not allowing gays to marry is not equal and hence... not right.

It's not even a real debate and I'm surprised anyone is against gay marriage at all. Who cares if two guys or two girls marry. I will never understand people who care so much about things that don't affect them. Straight people who are married will still get their divorce if gays can marry or not. Their kids will still resent them if gays marry or not. Straights can still create broken homes if gays marry or not. Nothing will change which is why I can't understand why anyone would be against gay marriage.

In the end, it's all bullshit and will be law that gays can marry everywhere in the country just like women could vote and black folk were no longer segregated. This is just a bump in the road like our society has had so many times before and our children will look back on this time in shame on us for even having a debate about it.

Here is an interesting fact btw. It's legal to marry your first blood cousin in more states than it is to have a gay wedding.

08-05-2010, 06:07 PM

Yet what are the odds it was modern Christians who've made it so difficult to put children to death for their sins?
In fairness, two of them were actually Jewish. Although that quote is from Deuteronomy, so I guess it's a wash.

08-05-2010, 06:15 PM

Ox, you are missing everything I'm even saying. Everything I'm saying is bullshit because the whole "debate" about gay marriage in the first place is bullshit.

It's all about equal rights, not allowing gays to marry is not equal and hence... not right.
Okay, first, that's such an oversimplification of the pro-gay-marriage argument (and the concept of equal rights more generally) that I'm embarrassed to be associated with it. Second, your opinion on gay rights does not excuse you from being a coward. You may be right on gay marriage, but you declare that people aren't entitled to hold opinions different from your own because you are too frightened even to engage their arguments. That kind of cowardice is bad even if you're in the wrong on the substance; when you're in the right, you bring disrepute on the very cause you supposedly champion. You do more damage to the pro-gay-marriage cause than a thousand Jerry Falwells, and you have no excuse.

You might think that the debate on gay marriage is "bullshit", much as I think the debate on whether I can have opinions about marriage is bullshit. The difference is that I resort to argument to show why you're wrong; I don't declare you are constitutionally incapable of holding valid opinions, or that the very fact you hold a stupid opinion demonstrates you are unworthy of refutation.

OldJadedGamer

08-05-2010, 06:25 PM

Okay, first, that's such an oversimplification of the pro-gay-marriage argument (and the concept of equal rights more generally) that I'm embarrassed to be associated with it. Second, your opinion on gay rights does not excuse you from being a coward. You may be right on gay marriage, but you declare that people aren't entitled to hold opinions different from your own because you are too frightened even to engage their arguments. That kind of cowardice is bad even if you're in the wrong on the substance; when you're in the right, you bring disrepute on the very cause you supposedly champion. You do more damage to the pro-gay-marriage cause than a thousand Jerry Falwells, and you have no excuse.

You might think that the debate on gay marriage is "bullshit", much as I think the debate on whether I can have opinions about marriage is bullshit. The difference is that I resort to argument to show why you're wrong; I don't declare you are constitutionally incapable of holding valid opinions, or that the very fact you hold a stupid opinion demonstrates you are unworthy of refutation.

Wow, you really are missing it here to the point where I'm not going to respond anymore and confuse you further. It's ok though. Jesus still loves you.

The fact that you took me seriously in any way, shape, or form shows you're not understanding what I'm typing.

08-05-2010, 06:31 PM

Oh no, I get that you are "goofing." I just don't appreciate your "goof." Your "goof" both illustrates your inherent hostility to intellectual discussion and demonstrates your inability to understand how callously offensive you are to make light of divorce and the lives it affects. The very fact that you are joking and think this is funny only reinforces how fucking offensive you are.

I do like your flippant invocation of Jesus as an ass-covering move to excuse you from being an asshole, though. That's a special kind of chutzpah I can appreciate.

National Kato

08-06-2010, 08:09 AM

MSNBC re-aired Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from November of 2008 when Prop 8 was passed. I thought it was a great statement and one worth seeing again.

ChanTFSmqao

MagGnome

08-06-2010, 01:11 PM

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/perez-hilton.jpg

Oh hell no!

There are hundreds of women I would sleep with before I touched him.

Zanzibar

08-06-2010, 03:08 PM

The classical reasons for marriage have collapsed: promoting procreation...

I *LOVE* this argument. By definition, doesn't this mean that infertile couples aren't legally married? Or couples who choose to not have children? Shouldn't the definition of marriage as argued by the Prop 8 proponents read 'the union of a man, a woman, and one or more children'?

johnperkins21

08-06-2010, 03:52 PM

I don't know, I think the shit is really going to hit the fan now. The judge who shot it down is openly gay. Although he has found himself on the wrong side of the gay rights movement before (the actual Olympics vs the "Gay Olympics" on naming rights -- he sided with the former), I think the outcry is going to be that he had an obvious bias and his ruling should be thrown out completely. I expect to hear a fair amount about his sexuality in the appeals, anyhow.

Looks like you were right. Though some people are taking it to the point of trying to get him impeached:
What can be done?

Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker. (http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147497248)
Wow. Just, wow.

MagGnome

08-06-2010, 03:57 PM

That's despicable.

Of course the American Family Association is comprised of a bunch of douchebags, so I'm not surprised.

OldJadedGamer

08-06-2010, 04:05 PM

Wow. Just, wow.

They misspelled the word "behavior".

08-06-2010, 04:14 PM

Or possibly they are quoting a document written before Noah Webster's spelling reform.

johnperkins21

08-06-2010, 04:47 PM

They misspelled the word "behavior".

Isn't that the British spelling? Which is funny considering they're the "American Family Association."

Zero

08-06-2010, 04:51 PM

They misspelled the word "behavior".

Isn't that the British spelling? Which is funny considering they're the "American Family Association."

As Ox has pointed out, it's a copy and paste from uh... the Gettysburg Address...?

;)

08-06-2010, 05:13 PM

I *LOVE* this argument. By definition, doesn't this mean that infertile couples aren't legally married? Or couples who choose to not have children? Shouldn't the definition of marriage as argued by the Prop 8 proponents read 'the union of a man, a woman, and one or more children'?
I don't think Doc is quite correct in claiming that one of the traditional purposes of marriage was to promote procreation (I think it was intended to promote the proper care for the offspring that tend to come about as a result of heterosexual intercourse). But in any event, you offer an interesting hypothetical. I can answer with another. One of the purposes of a political party is to win elections. If the party loses the election, does it cease to exist? Does it lose legal recognition?

I think most of the laws in our society exist to fulfill some purpose. Almost all of them fail to achieve that purpose in at least some circumstances. That doesn't necessarily lead to an automatic suspension of the law in those cases; nor should it.

But to answer your original question more directly: historically, infertility was a basis for dissolution of a marriage (back when divorces were hard to get). It didn't happen automatically -- few things do in our legal system -- but if you brought suit a divorce would be granted. Of course, almost all states have now abolished or supplanted fault-based divorce. Moreover, those states which still permit fault-based divorce generally no longer invite litigation based on infertility. The whys of that are historically interesting -- until very recently it was extremely difficult to pinpoint which spouse (if either!) was actually infertile, and in the 20th century many jurists concluded it was unseemly to hold hearings about the exact nature and frequency of couples' sexual activities -- and may or may not be relevant to the gay marriage issue. It's worth noting that at least some anti-SSM advocates also wish to reintroduce fault-based divorce, possibly including infertility as a grounds for divorce.

In any event, I think this is one of the weakest arguments in the pro-SSM quiver. Yes, marriage was traditionally focused on the offspring of heterosexual sex, at least in part; no, that concern is not as weighty when we're talking about same-sex couples. If the only purpose of marriage were to protect kids and same-sex couples never had custody of children, then the argument for extending marriage rights would be weaker. Saying "WUT ABOUT INFERTILE STRAIGHTS DUR DUR DUR" isn't very powerful. However, protecting kids is not the only purpose of marriage, and even if it were, same-sex couples do increasingly frequently have custody of children. Frankly, on the conservative side, this is possibly the most effective argument: empirically, children of married couples do much better than children of cohabiting couples or singles. Like it or not, many children are raised by gay people, and this trend will likely continue in the future. You don't have to concede that gays have a right to get married or endorse an expansion of the Equal Protection Clause in order to recognize that expanding marriage may have more positive than negative social effects, especially for the most vulnerable members of our society.

DoctorFinger

08-06-2010, 05:47 PM

evilgoodwin

08-07-2010, 02:06 AM

Again, I was talking about the *classical* rationale for marriage. And in many cultures the inability to have children was one of the few ways one could procure a divorce. This is also why there was a classical taboo on homosexuality. Having even a small chunk of your society effectively take themselves out of the gene pool/reproductive pool could have disastrous effects.

And yet, the chunk of the society that SHOULD be taken out of the gene pool are spreading like a staph infection.

I'm just going to be vague. Just to see who everyone thinks I'm referring to.

Shieldmaiden

08-07-2010, 05:41 AM

And yet, the chunk of the society that SHOULD be taken out of the gene pool are spreading like a staph infection.

I'm just going to be vague. Just to see who everyone thinks I'm referring to.

There's a very good reason that this (http://www.e4.com/game/privates.html) was commissioned as an educational game.

MagGnome

08-08-2010, 12:48 PM

Gay marriage is genocide (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2010/08/niece-of-martin-luther-king-calls-gay-marriage-genocide-at-nom-rally/).

HA!

Widgetcraft

08-08-2010, 02:00 PM

Gay marriage is genocide (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2010/08/niece-of-martin-luther-king-calls-gay-marriage-genocide-at-nom-rally/).

HA!

Allowing gay couples to marry amounts to “genocide” and will lead to the “extinction” of the human race, said the niece of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at a National Organization for Marriage rally in Atlanta on Saturday.

So, everyone is secretly gay, and if it is made socially acceptable, we'll never fuck the opposite sex again? That is an interesting theory, or at least an interesting insight into her internal struggle between the morality she was brought up with and her own sexual identity. I'm also not entirely sure that I give a shit about what Martin Luther King's niece has to say about anything; seems like the extended families of exceptional people tend to be total fuck-ups.

Ink Asylum

08-08-2010, 02:31 PM

We are in far more danger from overpopulation right now than we are from people not having enough people. Half the population of the world could go gay tomorrow and we'd be fine for millenia.

MagGnome

08-08-2010, 03:21 PM

The world is already overpopulated, and I find her statement to be so absurd that it's downright hilarious.

Also, as HM said, who cares what Dr. Martin Luther King's niece has to say about gay marriage? Quick, someone call Gandhi's third cousin's grandchildren and ask them how they feel about abortion!

civil

08-08-2010, 06:18 PM

Quick, someone call Gandhi's third cousin's grandchildren and ask them how they feel about abortion!
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q135/tlots/CoG/GG.jpg

DoctorFinger

08-08-2010, 07:19 PM

Forcing people to gay marry could result in extinction. Allowing it won't. However to help prevent this theoretical disaster, I will make myself available to any hot-ish lesbians who want kids. Because I'm a giver.

MagGnome

08-08-2010, 08:05 PM

You realize you wouldn't impregnate them manually, right? ;)

Blue

08-08-2010, 08:12 PM

I'm trying to figure out how a person can be impregnated in any way other than manual. Maybe this is why my wife and I don't have any kids yet.

DoctorFinger

08-08-2010, 08:25 PM

You realize you wouldn't impregnate them manually, right? ;)The hands have noting to do with that procedure. :D

MagGnome

08-08-2010, 08:59 PM

I should have put it this way - You would probably not be fucking either of them.

Think turkey baster, not penis. ;)

civil

08-08-2010, 09:03 PM

Are you saying Doc's dick is small enough to fit into the hole of a turkey baster?

Them's fightin' words where I come from.

MagGnome

08-08-2010, 09:19 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying.

Sometimes I really miss the eyeroll smiley.

evilgoodwin

08-08-2010, 10:50 PM

"Some people will call me the savior of mankind. Others will condemn my path, and seek to destroy me.

And if humanity wants to make it another generation, I'm the only chance they have left!"

Coming soon.
Survival of the Rapist: The Evilgoodwin Story

Rated R.

MagGnome

08-09-2010, 12:13 PM

That's absolutely not true. The world is populated. Robustly so. But it isn't past its means to support.

According to who? Many parts of the world are already facing a shortage of resources, most importantly food and fresh water.

The idea that the world can sustain even more people is absurd. I guess it is possible, but only if the developed world agreed to a drastic reduction in lifestyle (not going to happen by choice) and the developing world agreed to stop developing, which isn't going to happen.

MagGnome

08-09-2010, 01:13 PM

At least you can admit that I won. :D

Seriously though, it is a very complex issue.

ShivaX

08-09-2010, 02:05 PM

So, everyone is secretly gay, and if it is made socially acceptable, we'll never fuck the opposite sex again? That is an interesting theory, or at least an interesting insight into her internal struggle between the morality she was brought up with and her own sexual identity. I'm also not entirely sure that I give a shit about what Martin Luther King's niece has to say about anything; seems like the extended families of exceptional people tend to be total fuck-ups.

Which only convinces me more than people who are vehemently homophobic are actually gay themselves.

When they start going on and on about "giving into the temptations" of homosexuality, I'm forced to think about how much I don't want to suck another man's cock. Seriously, its not even a remote temptation. Its akin to the temptation of lighting my hand on fire. Its something I don't want to do. Even if you give me gasoline and a lighter, I still don't want to do it.

If I did want to do it, I'd be gay.

08-09-2010, 03:56 PM

According to who? Many parts of the world are already facing a shortage of resources, most importantly food and fresh water.
Merely pointing out a shortage doesn't demonstrate that the world cannot support many more people. I have a shortage of little green pieces of paper with dead politicians on them; but this does not demonstrate the world has reached Peak Currency.

There are shortages because people can only eat food or drink clean water if they (or someone else) compensates the farmers, shippers, technicians, etc. to provide those goods. Only slaves work for free. Although there are famines in much of the world, the US and Europe pay farmers to leave their fields fallow in order to restrict production. See, e.g., here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/07/02/GR2006070200024.html). The EU is famous for a vast and expensive bureaucracy; fully 48% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy) of that goes to restricting the amount of food produced so that prices stay high.

Meanwhile, shortages happen where the local economy is so poor that workers cannot afford to buy food, or where the government deliberately induces a famine for political ends. It's easy to think of where this sort of thing happens.

Western agricultural policy sickens me, because it deliberately induces famine and poverty in the rest of the world and imposes taxes and higher food prices on most Westerners in order to benefit the 0.1% of Westerners who farm. But even more galling is that this disgusting policy then leads folks to conclude there are "too many people." There aren't too many people; there are too many politicians.

Shieldmaiden

08-09-2010, 04:06 PM

For the record, I doubt I'll ever agree with Ox as much as I do on this. It's a completely despicable policy.

MagGnome

08-09-2010, 04:22 PM

I completely agree with what Ox said.

With that said, what about worldwide standard of living? Does anyone here honestly think that the Earth can sustain a world population with a standard of living that matches that of the much of the US and Europe? China and India are gulping up resources like crazy, and pushing toward a Western standard of living. It would be horrible to deny them that, but at the same time is it even possible long-term?

While we may hypothetically be able to sustain more people on Earth through proper resource management and a worldwide agreement to cap our standard of living, I don't see either one of those happening.

TheFlyingOrc

08-09-2010, 04:28 PM

While we may hypothetically be able to sustain more people on Earth through proper resource management and a worldwide agreement to cap our standard of living, I don't see either one of those happening.

Well, if we raised up the rest of the world's standard of living, the natural market forces would either:

Find new ways to produce enough for everybody.

or

Inflate the price of these goods, lowering the standard of living for those of us living the high life.

I'm actually cool with both. I mean - I LOVE how awesome living in America at this time is, but I'd certainly sacrifice, say, internet access, if it meant the rest of the world got to no longer worry about starvation.

I mean, take oil: If we run out we'll either find a replacement for energy needs, or our standard of living will go down. That's how natural resources work. Asking less people to live, or less people to live at a high standard of living, is really quite mean.

civil

08-09-2010, 04:28 PM

My fiancee's family comes from farming, and one day while standing in their fields I began to sing "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of subsidy..." to someone's annoyance. But it's more than the government. Much more. It's corporations too. It's been an eye opener, getting to know that world intimately. And also getting to know the evils of companies like ADM and Monsanto.

johnperkins21

08-09-2010, 04:41 PM

I mean, take oil: If we run out we'll either find a replacement for energy needs, or our standard of living will go down. That's how natural resources work. Asking less people to live, or less people to live at a high standard of living, is really quite mean.

That's all well and good for all resources other than fresh water.

MagGnome

08-09-2010, 04:43 PM

Monsanto and their ilk are among the most evil companies in the world.

I don't think that our problems are something that the "market" can fix. I don't subscribe to this notion that everything will work out in the end if we just follow the "market". The market fails to take any human emotion into account whatsoever, which is probably its biggest failing IMHO.

I personally think that if we just keep on the road we are on now and trust that the "market" will correct everything in the end, that correction will involve many millions, if not billions, of people dying off. It's happening already.

Obviously governments around the world share a big part of the blame, but relying solely on the market wouldn't fix things.

MagGnome

08-09-2010, 04:45 PM

That's all well and good for all resources other than fresh water.

That's a great point. Just look at what companies like Coca-Cola and various makers of bottled water have done to the water supply of less-developed countries.

TheFlyingOrc

08-09-2010, 04:49 PM

That's all well and good for all resources other than fresh water.

Well, we can purify it and whatnot. I think our global population is a long way from reaching our carrying capacity for water - the only problem is that it's distributed randomly, so you get an excess or a lack in one place.

Also places like parts of China and India where the water is indistinguishable from garbage.

Also RE: overpopulation in general:

Luckily, birth rates ARE falling. Recent estimates I saw were hopeful that the global population would peak around 2070. Estimates vary, however.

Monsanto and their ilk are among the most evil companies in the world.

I don't think that our problems are something that the "market" can fix. I don't subscribe to this notion that everything will work out in the end if we just follow the "market". The market fails to take any human emotion into account whatsoever, which is probably its biggest failing IMHO.

I personally think that if we just keep on the road we are on now and trust that the "market" will correct everything in the end, that correction will involve many millions, if not billions, of people dying off. It's happening already.

Obviously governments around the world share a big part of the blame, but relying solely on the market wouldn't fix things.

Oh, my optimism mostly depends on technology advancement. The market does fix an AMAZING amount of things (Ox's earlier example was where government interference was restricting it and, basically, killing lots of people)

I mean, either we produce enough resources or we don't - and if we don't, people die. I won't combat that claim.

08-09-2010, 08:09 PM

With that said, what about worldwide standard of living? Does anyone here honestly think that the Earth can sustain a world population with a standard of living that matches that of the much of the US and Europe? China and India are gulping up resources like crazy, and pushing toward a Western standard of living. It would be horrible to deny them that, but at the same time is it even possible long-term?
It depends on what you mean. Eventually, yes, industry and agriculture will become sufficiently efficient (provided it's not strangled) that a very high standard of living can be sustained with a metaphorical thimbleful of resources. It's worth noting, for example, that China produces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product_per_barrel) $708 of value out of every barrel of crude oil it produces or imports; we produce more than twice as much value from each barrel as China does, and Japan produces more than three times as much value as China does. That's an admittedly crude (ha!) measure of resource efficiency, but it indicates there's no particular reason to fear that resources will "run out."

On the other hand, getting efficient is hard. It's expensive. In the short term, affluence may increase more rapidly than efficiency, leading to higher prices for resources. That would slow the growth of everyone's standard of living, and in some cases might cause a backslide.

On the third hand, there is some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager) empirical evidence that efficiency rises faster than affluence. As Julian Simon said, "Every hungry mouth is attached to a pair of hands." Human beings tend to be valuable creatures. The ZPG folks seem to think of humans as burdens or pests.

That's all well and good for all resources other than fresh water.
That's silly. You think the only purpose to which people put fresh water is for drinking? Over half of all human-used fresh water is for irrigation, and that's not even counting the industrial, recreational, and other uses.

Monsanto and their ilk are among the most evil companies in the world.
Monsanto saved millions from malaria, funded Nobel Prize-winning research, and has helped feed over a billion people. They've done a lot of bad things, but it's hard to think of any organization or individual who has been as much a force for good, either.

civil

08-09-2010, 08:47 PM

Monsanto saved millions from malaria,
Through the liberal use of DDT. Which is not only no longer liberally used, it's no longer used. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/1677073.stm)
funded Nobel Prize-winning research,
I could find only one exampled of this, and because I don't quite grasp the entirety of the subject I only present the findings. (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2001/public.html)

and has helped feed over a billion people.
"Helped feed" and strong-arming an industry are not the same thing. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805)

They've done a lot of bad things, but it's hard to think of any organization or individual who has been as much a force for good, either.
Ox, tell me you forgot to add the plum coloring to this text.

08-09-2010, 09:03 PM

Through the liberal use of DDT. Which is not only no longer liberally used, it's no longer used. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/1677073.stm)
DDT is still used in some places to control disease, as your link makes clear. And while there are arguments for using other chemicals, especially in places like the United States where malaria has been eliminated, that doesn't reduce the value of the millions of lives which were saved. We don't use cowpox vaccines anymore, either, but I don't hear anyone calling Jenner a bitch.

"Helped feed" and strong-arming an industry are not the same thing. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805)
Monsanto invented agricultural genetic engineering. As your link says, that genetic engineering has increased yields and reduced costs -- which would have dramatically lowered prices if governments didn't deliberately thwart it.

Like I said, there's ample basis to criticize Monsanto. But if anyone wants to raise his hand and say he's done a thousandth of the good Monsanto has done, I'd be interested to hear the tale.

MagGnome

08-09-2010, 11:06 PM

On the third hand...

Now I know why you are so popular for the ladies.

Thanks for the good discussion so far everyone. I was afraid that the can of worms I opened would just lead to flames and insults, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the posts that have shown up so far. I personally take a very cynical view of the future, so cynical in fact that thinking about it for too long makes me think some very dark thoughts. I do hope I'm wrong!

I'm pretty tired, so I'm not going to add any specific points right now.

civil

08-09-2010, 11:17 PM

I ain't agin' genetically modified crops (to a point), I agin' the strong-arming Monsanto has done with farmers. In my future family-to-be it's taken it's toll, as well as the community they live in. It's more than science that's bringing them down. Talk to farmers man! Monsanto is fucking taking over their crops because of seeds. Jsut take a drive down some backass road. Crazy signs everywhere!

Fuck, started my original post with some beer in me, and now I'm further in. Krispy, just let Mag blow you and we'll call it a wash. Ox, you can take notes and write something witty about it later. I think I'm going to go masturbate myself to sleep.

MagGnome

08-09-2010, 11:43 PM

johnperkins21

08-10-2010, 12:28 AM

That's silly. You think the only purpose to which people put fresh water is for drinking? Over half of all human-used fresh water is for irrigation, and that's not even counting the industrial, recreational, and other uses.

What? I didn't say any such thing. Of course I'm aware of all (ok, probably not all, but most definitely more than one) the uses of fresh water, which is precisely why I mentioned it as a natural resource that, once lost, wouldn't simply reduce our standard of living.

AversionFX

08-10-2010, 04:07 AM

Can we please get back to the topic at hand? Gay people ruining marriage.

civil

08-10-2010, 05:12 AM

That is the most pathetic post I've ever read. Did you deliberately try to sound more drunk than you actually are?

Man up, Nancy boy, and quit squealing like a little sorority girl, or whatever it is you were jabbering about in that other thread.
Oy. No, I wasn't drunk. But seriously tipsy and needing to go to bed. Drunk people can't type! But tipsy people can type what they think is funny. Such as a certain Midwesterner getting his wish and fellating a certain West Coaster will an educated East Coaster got posting material for later by writing it in his Moleskine. You should thank me, I was trying to steer this thread back to it being about the gays!

And no one likes a meta-threader.

Also, Monsanto fucks over farmers.

ShivaX

08-10-2010, 06:26 AM

Can we please get back to the topic at hand? Gay people ruining marriage.

Sure.

Conservative lawyer who got Prop 8 overturned vs Fox News.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4305716/ted-olson-on-fns/

The sync is off, but its pretty great to listen to.

08-10-2010, 07:28 AM

What? I didn't say any such thing. Of course I'm aware of all (ok, probably not all, but most definitely more than one) the uses of fresh water, which is precisely why I mentioned it as a natural resource that, once lost, wouldn't simply reduce our standard of living.
Okay, but presumably our fresh water supplies won't suddenly disappear. They'll run down over time. As they run down, we have an incentive to shift it from uses where it is replaceable (much of industry) to places where it is not (drinking water).

I'll grant that you are right that fresh water is very different from other goods, but not because it's vital. Water is almost always provided through a government monopoly, usually one that deliberately subsidizes overconsumption. In this case, many of the usual arguments for why we can't run out of a good fall apart.