Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/22/09 05:25 PM, JadeTheAssassin wrote: Just a head's up, no names or anything, but like, you know, try and keep the QUADRUPLE posting down to ONE post, you know, or else it's a bannable offense.

Keep that in mind when you got a lot in your mouth to say.

Thanks for the info.

I'm done as well.

At 5/22/09 04:29 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 5/22/09 03:55 PM, skyraider wrote:

At 5/22/09 03:44 PM, LaForge wrote: skyraider.

If gays and lesbians and transsexuals were allowed to be married in America, revenue for small businesses such as catering, cake-making, ring and wedding band dealers, tux and dress dealers, flower/flora dealers, receptionists, wedding planners, and DJ's would nearly double. Not to mention marriage licenses, which go straight to the state in which the couple is getting married in.

Your bigotry is keeping cash out of the pockets of small business and the state budget. If you won't budge on moral ground, then you can at least realize on practical ground what a fucking idiotic idea it is to disallow gay marriage.

Here you go repeating your pitiful "bigot" line to defend your indefensibly positivist views. I wonder what you think about government policy towards nuclear power, corn ethanol, wind, automobiles, and health insurance - areas which have an impact on the economy thousands of times larger than the marriage industry.

That's like saying we should require the Bible in school in addition to other books because it will generate enormous revenue for the print industry.

Are you serious?

I'm dead fucking serious. The separation of church and state ensures that Bibles will never end up in school, since they are state-funded. Very few people would even argue that Bibles should be in school, it's a stupid idea. School is a place of scholarship, a place of scientific fact. Like the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with primates.

I digress. Your spouting off about other government policies is utterly irrelevant to this thread, since this thread is about gay marriage. If you wanna rant about other government policies, make a thread called "If you oppose other government policies, why?"

Yeah, and about a similar percentage with animals far outside our genus. If school is a place of scientific fact, there is no room for leftist interpretations of history and textbooks friendly to South American dictators. But those things abound, and arts abound in school, too.

It is quite relevant, because if you oppose progress on economic issues - i.e, if you fall where most of the pro-gay-marriage voters do on economic issues - then you (you meaning "a person" or "one") are incredibly hypocritical for wanting to suck billions out of our productive capacity in one place and base your entire argument for gay marriage on mere millions in additional consumption in another.

The Bible is already in public schools, as are other books. They are part of the arts curriculum that liberals love to fund. Anyways, that's not the point of this thread.

At 5/22/09 03:44 PM, LaForge wrote: skyraider.

If gays and lesbians and transsexuals were allowed to be married in America, revenue for small businesses such as catering, cake-making, ring and wedding band dealers, tux and dress dealers, flower/flora dealers, receptionists, wedding planners, and DJ's would nearly double. Not to mention marriage licenses, which go straight to the state in which the couple is getting married in.

Your bigotry is keeping cash out of the pockets of small business and the state budget. If you won't budge on moral ground, then you can at least realize on practical ground what a fucking idiotic idea it is to disallow gay marriage.

Here you go repeating your pitiful "bigot" line to defend your indefensibly positivist views. I wonder what you think about government policy towards nuclear power, corn ethanol, wind, automobiles, and health insurance - areas which have an impact on the economy thousands of times larger than the marriage industry.

That's like saying we should require the Bible in school in addition to other books because it will generate enormous revenue for the print industry.

Are you serious?

I should add one last thing, which is that just because something was done doesn't mean it was right. Was slavery right? No, duh. That's the most blatant government-sanctioned violation of human rights.

Rights are derived from protections the state enforces against positive coercion by others against you. That is the only source of rights. Any other rights are given only by law and only exist because of changing political winds. An example of such a legal-positivist right is the "right" to health care - a right which, by the way, will decrease access to healthcare in economic the long run. But the right to a writ of habeus corpus prevents the government from actively coercing you into incarceration without just cause.

And then there's the issue of discrimination in the law. People who are against interracial marriages, adoptions etc are often xenophobic. As you pointed out, such discrimination based on arbitrary and inherent characteristics is very bad.

Marriage laws aren't discriminatory, and none of you have provided a case for why we should alter the long-standing and successful definition of marriage between and man and a woman just to accommodate emotional desires. The institution of marriage is a heterosexual thing. That has nothing to do with racism or sexism or bigotry, though those are convenient and cheap political tools to help silence those with whom you disagree.

"So we come back to "traditional morality".

Traditionally interracial marriage was banned too, yet you seem fine with that changing, why is that?"

Okay, I said this earlier but I am referring to the mix of morality and utility and tradition that should define the proper government policy. Clearly, discrimination based on inherent characteristics that are irrelevant to marriage - like race - does not qualify in the tradition category.

For utility, see my gender point.

For morality, see the Bible, which I can already predict is hated for its loving message that all people messed up. Also see traditional sexuality, which is quite alright. Why upend it? It's served us fine for thousands of years.

"You're a hypocrite, you attack equality for homosexuals because it's the last acceptable form of discrimination, racism got stamped down, sexism got stamped down and now the only people you have left to look down on are the gays."

Um, not quite. This may not have occurred to you, but just because someone accepts Christian morality does not mean that person is a racist or a sexist. That is a very ignorant claim!

You look down on Christians, conservatives, Bible believers and other absolutists.

At 5/22/09 11:58 AM, Fyndir wrote:

At 5/22/09 11:52 AM, skyraider wrote: Let me break down my original post for you since you can't read.

All you're doing is repeating yourself, instead of explaining your views, you clearly have no interest in an actual discussion on this matter.

When someone asks further questions it's because they want MORE information from you, not the same information repeated at them, your unwillingness to go into this in any kind of depth proves that you're simply bigoted and constructing elaborate webs of nonsense to hide it.

Ugh. You're obnoxious, and you sir and quite good at that.

Please respond to my point about how gender is very relevant to marriage but race is not. Remember that I said that you can reproduce with someone of any race, but not of any gender. That's a pretty fundamental point, and there's not really any other way to state it without going into unnecessary detail. That's one distinction I drew between race and gender.

Also, where is the justification for discriminating based on race in marriage licenses? Is marriage between one race and another? No... at least that's not how my tradition defines it. And it shouldn't be that way because of the point raised above - race is not relevant to marriage, whereas gender is.

I could make the same claim about your bigotry against traditional morality because you will not respond to the gender point I have raised repeatedly, but that would be unproductive. You can easily help turn this into a shouting match, or you can respond with logic to defeat my above point. I have put in the effort to explain my point as succinctly and clearly as possible, and now you should either state that you do not understand and need more information, and if so, where specifically you need more information, or rebut the point, or agree - just do something besides calling names :)

At 5/22/09 11:43 AM, Mr-Money wrote:

At 5/22/09 11:40 AM, skyraider wrote: No no no, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that your Government has concentrated too much power in the hands of the political class

If you have transparency and elections every year, the people can have the chance to change that. Every single politician should have to be elected by the public.

If you extract the maximum amount of transparency from the government and get the maximum number of people to care and read that information, the corruption may be lessened, but not the bad policies and occasional large scandals. I think your ideas are good ones to implement.

At 5/22/09 11:47 AM, Fyndir wrote:

At 5/22/09 11:45 AM, skyraider wrote: Better respond or I'll start throwing out words like "hypocrite" and "pathetic" and "man-eating elephant," too.

Pro-tip, I responded to it with questions, just like I did before, and you still haven't answered any of them.

You asked about 1) the difference, 2) the definition, 3) why denying interracial marriage is bad, and 4) why I am fine with the changing of the definition of marriage when it was not interracial.

Let me break down my original post for you since you can't read. The numbers correspond to the numbers above.

" 3 and 4) That's not OK. Race is a clearly inherent characteristic that isn't even relevant to marriage. How is that relevant?

1) Gender, on the other hand, is very relevant. Marriage is a legal and also sexual institution. You can reproduce with someone of any race, but not of any gender, [for example]. 2) You who hate traditional morality desire to make gender irrelevant."

To elaborate even further on #2.. the definition of marriage is not 'whatever is traditional.' It's the combination of tradition, utility and morality that you purport not to understand.

Now you must respond to my point.

At 5/22/09 11:42 AM, Fyndir wrote:

At 5/22/09 11:27 AM, skyraider wrote: I did, but you didn't accept that rational explanation...

No, you didn't, you made a vague reference to it being bad and then didn't answer any of my other questions on the matter.

In fact, I'll repeat them for you, please answer them all this time.

Why is denying inter-racial marriage bad but denying gay marriage not?

What's the difference?

Who, or what, defines what marriage is?

You who hate traditional morality desire to make gender irrelevant.

So we come back to "traditional morality".

Traditionally interracial marriage was banned too, yet you seem fine with that changing, why is that?

You're a hypocrite, you attack equality for homosexuals because it's the last acceptable form of discrimination, racism got stamped down, sexism got stamped down and now the only people you have left to look down on are the gays.

Pathetic.

And I'll repeat my answer, which you did not address in your above post:

"That's not OK. Race is a clearly inherent characteristic that isn't even relevant to marriage. How is that relevant?

Gender, on the other hand, is very relevant. Marriage is a legal and also sexual institution. You can reproduce with someone of any race, but not of any gender, [for example]. You who hate traditional morality desire to make gender irrelevant."

Better respond or I'll start throwing out words like "hypocrite" and "pathetic" and "man-eating elephant," too.

At 5/22/09 11:37 AM, Mr-Money wrote:

At 5/22/09 11:29 AM, skyraider wrote: I think the Queen should dissolve Parliament right now and hold new elections.

Well sure, but having new elections won't prevent us from getting into this mess down the line.

We need to address the fundamental problem, which is a lack of transparency and influence from the people.

No no no, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that your Government has concentrated too much power in the hands of the political class, which will always be a slimy bunch of slithering snakes. Transparency will not make them angels. Too many years of Labour, and too much experimentation with the policies of those like Mr. Attlee, have contributed to a bloated Government.

Now the only question on PMQ is, "Mr. Prime Minister, how will you ensure the people of [X town] that you will provide them with [other peoples' money for cause Y] ?"

I think the Queen should dissolve Parliament right now and hold new elections.

At 5/22/09 11:05 AM, Fyndir wrote:

At 5/22/09 10:52 AM, skyraider wrote: But nobody has a right to marry the person they love.

So we go back 2 pages of the thread and come to my post from earlier.

Heterosexual same-race marriages are now the only marriages allowed by law, sure that black guy can't marry the white woman he loves, but he can marry that black woman he doesn't love, and that's ok, because no-one has a right to marry the person they love.

Now you'll reply and tell me that it's different, but never offer a rational explanation as to WHY it's different.

I did, but you didn't accept that rational explanation...

That's not OK. Race is a clearly inherent characteristic that isn't even relevant to marriage. How is that relevant?

Gender, on the other hand, is very relevant. Marriage is a legal and also sexual institution. You can reproduce with someone of any race, but not of any gender, por ejemplo. You who hate traditional morality desire to make gender irrelevant.

At 5/22/09 10:30 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:48 AM, Elfer wrote: What then? Legally speaking, they'd still be married, since the church ceremony itself has nothing to do with obtaining a license.

but if these are private organizations what legal obligations do they have to recognize these marriages?

IMO, nobody should be forced by the government to enforce the latest positivist right. Before we know it, government will be coercing private institutions into performing all sorts of nonsense that they consider immoral. Hospitals forced to abort (it's been tried) and churches forces to conduct marriages that they don't agree with.

There is absolutely no need for the civic organization, by the way. The two parties just draw up a contract and sign it. If they find a place for a ceremony, then they find a place for a ceremony.

Now are you going to tell me that there is a right to a marriage ceremony? Let me guess, we must pay for marriage ceremonies for those who can't afford it, including flowers and the limo. Right? That's the only way to enforce such a right.

At 5/22/09 01:44 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/21/09 05:41 PM, skyraider wrote: Those aren't subsidies. Those are the "not-monetary benefits" I mentioned. Read.

We are reading, you aren't making sense and you seem pretty ill-equipped to speak on this topic. Either you're trying to rile folks up on purpose or you're just willfully ignorant.

Also I fail to see how the ability to marry (and by that I mean the legal institution which grants couples many legal benefits and choices in terms of their partnership) is an "invented" or "imaginary" right. Why isn't it a right of people that should be protected? How are taxpayers subsidizing these couples (cause I'm really really failing to see how they're getting anything like that from taxes). There are many good reasons for having the legally recognized institution of marriage and I'm not sure why we need to make it civil instead of governmental (you have failed to show me any real benefit of doing so), is it just because you feel like folks shouldn't need to be "licensed" and fork out that extra money to the government before they make the partnership legal?

Also there are problems with the idea of having a civil organization be in charge of marriage because as has been pointed out many churches would refuse homosexuals a marriage ceremony because of their beliefs, sure SOME do, but those do not seem widespread to me and what if the couple in question can't get to one? What then?

You're throwing out a solution to what you see as a problem but you haven't done terribly much to elaborate upon it, please do so as perhaps I might learn something and be edified by it.

It's just the standard standard libertarian take on marriage. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_
id=9433

All that means is that instead of having a license... the terms of marriage are decided by the couple to be married. As the article notes, you seek "official government sanction" for marriage. This method doesn't give that sanction. But this method doesn't mess up all the laws currently dependent on license-based marriage.

You just invented that right, right there. Where did it come from besides your desire to permit gay marriage?

Why do you have to get married in a church?

Cut the "willfully ignorant" nonsense and go read tax law. Filing status changes, and so do tax benefits, as well as deductions. Yes, there are disadvantages and even penalties, but the net effect is a tax benefit, expressed rather explicitly through the above-mentioned ways. In fact, for the majority of people, the effect of the marriage penalty is outweighed by the benefits.

You want to establish a right for gays to get married. But nobody has a right to marry the person they love. Heterosexuals don't have that right, and often do not get to marry the person they love. Marriage as it stands is a legal institution that does not need to be upended to accommodate new "rights."

Again, where is this right derived from other than the desire of people to perform a certain action?

I'm just saying that you could probably silences the qualms of some of the pro-man-woman-marriage side if you eliminated the official sanction via license and replaced it with a flexible contract.

taxpayer's subsidizes eh? i figured establishing legal authority over one another's affairs and the distribution of property would have been more realistic and practical reasons for government involvement in marriage, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Those aren't subsidies. Those are the "not-monetary benefits" I mentioned. Read.

At 5/21/09 04:57 PM, Elfer wrote: Oh I see, so you want marriages to be private contracts rather than a public license? I got confused because you said "civic" (I think the word you want is "civil", as in "civil law").

The problem with this is that marriage licenses also grant some governmental benefits, and people would be super super pissed if you just whisked those out of existence.

Yeah, people don't like it when taxpayers stop subsidizing them, etc. The non-monetary benefits are touchy... and will only be established when voters warm up to gay marriage, I think.

At 5/21/09 04:11 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 5/20/09 08:03 PM, skyraider wrote: I would prefer all marriages to be conducted by civic organizations. So nobody at all (though we may want to do a transition to such a system as opposed to completely eliminating marriage licenses overnight - that probably wouldn't turn out too well!)

So you would agree to a system in which both straight and gay people would be allowed to obtain the same legal union license, as long as it's not called "marriage"?

I can dig it.

That's still a government-sanctioned bunch of nonsense. I was saying it should be a private contract.

At 5/21/09 04:11 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 5/20/09 08:03 PM, skyraider wrote: I would prefer all marriages to be conducted by civic organizations. So nobody at all (though we may want to do a transition to such a system as opposed to completely eliminating marriage licenses overnight - that probably wouldn't turn out too well!)

So you would agree to a system in which both straight and gay people would be allowed to obtain the same legal union license, as long as it's not called "marriage"?

I can dig it.

Huh? Why can't it be called marriage?

:: Why is it different?
::You seem to draw arbitrary lines in the sand, based on nothing at all.

Read my post... positive coercion vs invented rights...

At 5/21/09 03:27 PM, Fyndir wrote:

At 5/21/09 02:11 PM, skyraider wrote: If I suddenly decide that it is OK to do something that used to be widely considered immoral, are you now a bigot if you refuse to codify a "right" to do such a thing into law? No...

You have yet to offer a rational explanation for why this change in moral attitudes is any different from the changes relating to beating your wife, raping your wife, keeping slaves, sending children to work in the mines etc.

Lots of things used to be consider moral that are now considered immoral, should we go back to them too just because it used to be that way?

All of the actions that you mention involve one individual engaging in positive coercion against another individual. The purpose of government is to prevent positive coercion (i.e., violence) by one individual against another. This is wholly different than your legal-positivist view that just because they say so, various groups are entitled to various benefits.

At 5/21/09 07:01 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/21/09 06:18 AM, TheMaskedOne wrote: I think we just need to give the whole issue some time and the bigots will eventually see the light.

It's not a matter of time changing the bigots' opinions, but rather, enough people will eventually be in favour of it that the bigots' opinions won't matter.

Right, except replace "bigot" with "people who disagree with leftist positivists." Name-calling is not going to get you very far among the mature, voting public.

At 5/21/09 01:54 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 5/20/09 07:54 PM, skyraider wrote: I'm saying they should be allowed to marry... but there's no reason that the state should change the law to satisfy the emotional desires of some people. The system works fine as it is.

Not unless you are "some people". Im guessing you aren't.

So government should get out of marriage and civic organization - many of which would be more than happy to conduct gay marriages - should marry all the gay people they like.

Wait what? I thought you said the system worked fine? I agree with youre point, but talk about back-tracking.

It does work fine. Now people found a new morality - or resurrected an old one, if you stubbornly cling to that position - and want to invent a right. Instead of inventing a right, we should make marriage a private matter.

And no, you wouldn't have to rewrite other laws. Just have the civic organization draw up a legal contract for marriage and have the government enforce that. Easy said, easy done. No licenses involved.

If I suddenly decide that it is OK to do something that used to be widely considered immoral, are you now a bigot if you refuse to codify a "right" to do such a thing into law? No...

At 5/20/09 08:25 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/20/09 05:35 PM, skyraider wrote:
Yeah, but if our secret agents are torturing captives, then our enemies will have an even higher propensity to torture our captured agents.

oh really? its totally justifiable for us. they torture innocent villiagers and humanitarian volunteers and journalists THATS TOTALY DIFFERENT FROM OUR VS THIER AGENTS. and they do the cowardly thing and use IEDs.

So we should keep, I think, interrogation techniques limited to waterboarding, which is like using a nasal cleaning kit. Apparently, it works, and it doesn't inflict lasting physical harm.

wrong it simulates the experience of drowning it nothing like that. and it may not have physical harm but it does mental. but I am all for beatings and sleep deprivation and giving them less food to these scum.

That's all true, but only for a certain "they." My concern is that we'll pick up an innocent civilian and used enhanced interrogation techniques. Beatings no, sleep deprivation, some (navy seals have to go ~ 5 days) and less food, fine. Please, no real torture though.

At 5/20/09 08:00 PM, aninjaman wrote: Are you saying the government should only marry straight people or not marry anyone at all?

I would prefer all marriages to be conducted by civic organizations. So nobody at all (though we may want to do a transition to such a system as opposed to completely eliminating marriage licenses overnight - that probably wouldn't turn out too well!)

Btw when I said "just because you disagree with him is no reason to call him a demagogue. He's just a radio host..."

I was using the impersonal "you" - wasn't talking to you, lol

Yes they can be more efficient, but can we rely on private enterprise for everything? No.

I didn't say I agree with every one of Rush's statements, but just because you disagree with him is no reason to call him a demagogue. He's just a radio host...

I didn't call him a demagogue. I think anyone like Rush, as in someone who fails to understand why some people disagree with them and uses falsified information to make people who disagree with him look despicable is a jack ass.

About 95% percent of things.

I disagree with Rush sometimes, too.

Who is using falsified information?

At 5/20/09 07:51 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 5/20/09 07:48 PM, skyraider wrote: So? Why should this result in a changing of the definition of marriage? The burden of argument is on you now.

Shift of arguement topic. This is about marriage now? Are you giving up on your old point?
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry? The definition of marriage has been changed many times before when interracial marriages couldn't happen.

Discrimination on clearly inherent characteristics is obviously bad. I thought this was always about marriage? .... ?

I'm saying they should be allowed to marry... but there's no reason that the state should change the law to satisfy the emotional desires of some people. The system works fine as it is. So government should get out of marriage and civic organization - many of which would be more than happy to conduct gay marriages - should marry all the gay people they like.

At 5/20/09 07:44 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 5/20/09 06:55 PM, skyraider wrote: If people weren't meant to reproduce, then we wouldn't exist... it is a natural urge that sustains all animals/creatures.

Think before you post please.

You're not getting it. Homosexuals can have an urge to have children and have sex. Just not an urge to have sex with the opposite gender.

So? Why should this result in a changing of the definition of marriage? The burden of argument is on you now.

At 5/20/09 07:42 PM, Patton3 wrote: So because not every program is perfect, I suppose that validates Rush's claim despite the fact that the military is imperfect itself?

I think you are missing the point. It's not that I expect government programs to be perfectly efficient. If government spent its current income efficiently, we'd already be slaves (Milton Friedman). Just think about what that money would have done had it not been given to government. The answer is quite alot more, in most cases.

I didn't say I agree with every one of Rush's statements, but just because you disagree with him is no reason to call him a demagogue. He's just a radio host...

At 5/20/09 07:26 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 5/20/09 12:06 PM, skyraider wrote: Limbaugh is not a demagogue. He says perfectly reasonable things - if you actually listen to his popular radio program.

demagogue may be the wrong word. How about jack ass?
proof he is a jack ass:
1. Constantly drones "family values" yet has divorced twice and doesn't have kids.
2. States that the poor simply leech off of welfare, yet collected welfare himself during his first marriage, and is to thick to realize most poor people actively try to work, to support their family, etc.
3. Criticizes draft dodgers, yet did so himself by not reporting in for a physical, and attending one year of college to obtain the education exception.
4. Is quite possibly sexist, given quotes like "feminism is a way for ugly women to be exposed to the mainstream media" and "feminazis".
5. Criticized Obama for the comment on the special Olympics, yet has joked about AIDS victims in Africa.
6. Enjoys misconstruing facts. Take for example a graph he showed portraying tax proportions during the Reagan years. Yet the graph includes '89 and '90, during which time Bush Sr. administered two tax policies of his own.
7. Here's a quote from " See I told you so" - " With the exception of the military, I defy you to name one government program that has worked and alleviated the problem it was created to solve. Hhhmmmmmmm? I'm waiting...Time's up.".
Hhhmmmmmmm, what government program has ever worked beside the military? I mean, besides Rural electrification, the interstate highway system, public schools, public libraries, public parks, distribution of health and safety information, National Institutes of Health, Youth Summer Jobs Program, The FAA, light houses, federal and state penitentiaries, public hospitals, youth sports, pro-reading, homeless shelters, The National Park system, guaranteed student loans, the G.I. Bill, Food Stamps, Medicare, head start, the FBI, the CIA, fire stations, police stations, writing the Constitution, passing civil rights, emancipating the slaves, trans-continental railroad, the Louisiana purchase, the Manhattan project, the projects, industrialization, building the suburbs, rebuilding the south, rebuilding Europe, rebuilding Japan, aid to Greece and Turkey, insuring your bank holdings, breaking up standard oil, the peace corps, NAFTA, and the patriot act. Note: Not in any particular order.
And that just barely cracking the surface.

You assume too much. Breaking up Standard Oil didn't do us much good. Medicare is wayyyy too expensive and is quite frankly a failure. Yes it helps people, but they could be helped alot more by a less-expensive system.

Fire and police stations are local. He primarily targets the feds.

Peace Corp and NAFTA have their problems, and so does the Patriot Act.

Guaranteed student loans are the primary reason that college costs have exploded much faster than wages over the last 40 years. Now, unlike then, middle-class kids can't afford to attend Ivies on savings. And it's even worse for the poor.

Public schools sometimes result in poor, inner-city kids getting stuck in a poverty trap. And the schools are just holes for money.

Basically, you just named a bunch of ways that the government spends other peoples' money. I encourage everyone to stop and think about what would have happened had private interests spent that money instead. And don't reach straight for the little red book or the Center for American Progress when you do.