PDA

View Full Version : Dear State of Maine



Pages : 1 [2]

captncrzy
11-11-2009, 01:24 PM
I happen to agree with most of your points. Just saying it's like watching a wheel spin.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 01:24 PM
You have completely missed the point of the whole debate.

This debate isn't on your terms, jackass. Maybe the "point of the whole debate" is stupid and what I said made more sense than what you were saying.

Young blood
11-11-2009, 01:26 PM
This debate isn't on your terms, jackass. Maybe the "point of the whole debate" is stupid and what I said made more sense than what you were saying.

You should call him a Nazi just to show him you mean business.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 01:26 PM
Don't be butt-hurt, you were the one who didn't explain yourself and made a stupid, intolerant comment about Christians. I know I wasn't the only one who read that and thought you were a fucking moron.

the fact that it wasn't completely obvious makes me feel sorry for you.
It's not intolerant, you just don't understand what is being said.

Maybe it's best you keep quiet before you get further hurt by people marginalizing your cute faith in a hippie zombie.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 01:28 PM
This debate isn't on your terms, jackass. Maybe the "point of the whole debate" is stupid and what I said made more sense than what you were saying.


Oooh you're not making sense, it's me who's making sense. wwahh wahh wahhhhhh..

You're a fun one.

Have you even been reading this thread?

Go play with your catnip.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 01:36 PM
Why do they have such trouble understanding this, Tim?

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 01:37 PM
Jesus, are you 12?


again I'm not claiming that the Christians don't believe that they created marriage. I'm sure they do. I would never suggest that any christian would admit that marriage existed before them. But we both know the concept did, and if this country were dominated by something other than Christianity we'd be having this same argument. We could be a Jewish or Muslim state and things would not be much different.

These were your words. I've bolded the ones that suggest you have a low IQ. I've italicized the ones that suggest you have an even lower IQ and that you're possibly a nazi.

edit: If you didn't realize based on previous comments I've made (read the thread) I agree with you and Randy on your main argument but that doesn't excuse you from using your brain in later posts.

I'm also not a Christian and I didn't make any indication that I was.

mountmccabe
11-11-2009, 01:43 PM
On this fun side tangent to our side tangent... I'd like to point out that "I would never suggest that any christian would admit that marriage existed before them" <> "I do not believe that there are any christians that would admit that marriage existed before them."

The first one made perfect sense for Jack to say, contextually.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 01:48 PM
On this fun side tangent to our side tangent... I'd like to point out that "I would never suggest that any christian would admit that marriage existed before them" <> "I do not believe that there are any christians that would admit that marriage existed before them."

The first one made perfect sense for Jack to say, contextually.

...not if either of you are well-versed in English. But stupid argument anyway. I didn't mean for him to get butt-hurt. Let's continue the pointless semantics debate.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 01:48 PM
Jesus, are you 12?



These were your words. I've bolded the ones that suggest you have a low IQ. I've italicized the ones that suggest you have an even lower IQ and that you're possibly a nazi.


OK I'll spell it out for you even clearer since you're not reading this fucking thread. We are creating a distinction here between religious marriage and secular union. THAT is what this fucking debate was about. Some believe it shouldn't be necessary, some of us do. You apparently are one of those so brainwashed that you can't understand the difference. Now I admit that I could have made it clearer by saying that the christians would accept that the concept of marriage as a sacred union existed before them but no christian would admit that christian marriage existed before them. Those older marriages are not what they hold sacred. It's CHRISTIAN marriage that you idiots are so fiercely defending. You're not defending Shinto or Bhuddism or the fucking Cult of Isis. You couldn't care less if gays could marry under those fake faiths.

Do you honestly think I could lose my train of thought in two consecutive sentences? More likely you're just so excited that you think you've caught me in a contradiction that you're not even investing a single ounce of thought before lashing out because the stupid little fairy your parents and an old virgin made you believe is being assaulted.




Godwin's Law strikes again. You're a gem, dude.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 01:52 PM
...not if either of you are well-versed in English. But stupid argument anyway. I didn't mean for him to get butt-hurt. Let's continue the pointless semantics debate.

If you honestly think it's simply semantics and not of any consequence then you have no place here.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 01:52 PM
OK I'll spell it out for you even clearer since you're not reading this fucking thread. We are creating a distinction here between religious marriage and secular union. THAT is what this fucking debate was about. Some believe it shouldn't be necessary, some of us do. You apparently are one of those so brainwashed that you can't understand the difference. Now I admit that I could have made it clearer by saying that the christians would accept that the concept of marriage as a sacred union existed before them but no christian would admit that christian marriage existed before them. It's CHRISTIAN marriage that you idiots are so fiercely defending. You're not defending Shinto or Bhuddism or the fucking Cult of Isis. You couldn't care less if gays could marry under those fake faiths.

Do you honestly think I could lose my train of thought in two consecutive sentences? More likely you're just so excited that you think you've caught me in a contradiction that you're not even investing a single ounce of thought before lashing out because the stupid little fairy your parents and an old virgin made you believe is being assaulted.




Godwin's Law strikes again. You're a gem, dude.

I'm just gonna ignore your stupid attacks from now on, waste of time. Once again: At what point did you decide I was a right-wing evangelist defending the "sanctity of marriage"?'

I realize what you are creating a distinction between in this thread. I was making a separate point (ever had a non-black and white debate?) about the fact that secular marriages are fine, religious marriages are fine, but either way the government should stay out of it.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 01:54 PM
But once again, Christians wouldn't even be wrong to say that "marriage" didn't exist before them. The word was born in English in the 13th century, presumably in England, and during a time when England was almost entirely Christian. The fact that there were virtually identical customs in other languages by other names and involving other religions or lack thereof is irrelevant. "Marriage" was first a Christian practice.

amyzzz
11-11-2009, 01:56 PM
I'm just gonna ignore your stupid attacks from now on, waste of time. Once again: At what point did you decide I was a right-wing evangelist defending the "sanctity of marriage"?'

I realize what you are creating a distinction between in this thread. I was making a separate point (ever had a non-black and white debate?) about the fact that secular marriages are fine, religious marriages are fine, but either way the government should stay out of it.
Who is going to protect and uphold married people's rights if the government stays out of it? That makes no sense. People want to file as married with the IRS, people want to visit their spouses in the hospital, people want to be able to inherit the spouse's estate.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 01:59 PM
Who is going to protect and uphold married people's rights if the government stays out of it? That makes no sense. People want to file as married with the IRS, people want to visit their spouses in the hospital, people want to be able to inherit the spouse's estate.

On your first point: what rights?
2nd: IRS is government. What business do they have in your relationships? They only want to file as married because that's the system we've set up.
3rd: I think people should be able to choose who visits them in the hospital - I don't even know how this law started.
4th: ditto.

Bud Luster
11-11-2009, 02:02 PM
the government should stay out of it.

Gotta agree with Amy on this one. Do you feel that being married shouldn't affect tax status, power of attorney, etc? Then why not just do away with the married status completely?

*edit, posted too late...

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:03 PM
But once again, Christians wouldn't even be wrong to say that "marriage" didn't exist before them. The word was born in English in the 13th century, presumably in England, and during a time when England was almost entirely Christian. The fact that there were virtually identical customs in other languages by other names and involving other religions or lack thereof is irrelevant. "Marriage" was first a Christian practice.

Right. The English word "marriage" is historically Christian. That shouldn't legally give Christians any advantage in this debate but I agree with your argument that gays should let this one go at least for now.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:05 PM
Gotta agree with Amy on this one. Do you feel that being married shouldn't affect tax status, power of attorney, etc? Then why not just do away with the married status completely?

*edit, posted too late...

Maybe having children should affect tax status. I don't know why marriage should have to do with it.

Can you give me an example of how power of attorney is affected? I don't really know the practices.

Bud Luster
11-11-2009, 02:07 PM
On your first point: what rights?
2nd: IRS is government. What business do they have in your relationships? They only want to file as married because that's the system we've set up.
3rd: I think people should be able to choose who visits them in the hospital - I don't even know how this law started.
4th: ditto.

Also, there are marriage rights. They supersede the rights of family and next of kin once you sign the docs. People file as married because it BENEFITS them, not just because that is the system that's been put in place. Its not necessarily a choice about who can visit someone in the hospital (pretty much anyone can visit in most situations) It's about making medical decisions for a spouse that might be unable to make such decisions for themselves.

*edit: if you are not married your family makes decisions when you cant make them for yourself. They get the $$$ when you kick the bucket.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 02:09 PM
I'm just gonna ignore your stupid attacks from now on, waste of time. Once again: At what point did you decide I was a right-wing evangelist defending the "sanctity of marriage"?'

I realize what you are creating a distinction between in this thread. I was making a separate point (ever had a non-black and white debate?) about the fact that secular marriages are fine, religious marriages are fine, but either way the government should stay out of it.

So you claim to understand what I'm trying to debate and think that "the government should stay out of it" is a separate issue?

Are you sniffing glue?

"the government should stay out of it" is entirely the point. You just don't seem to understand the the points here so I'll outline it for you and then shut the fuck up.

- Marriage has existed always (even before Christians).
- It started as purely religious, but as society developed further it had legal connotations attached.
- Eventually larger secular governments evolved, and rules were applied to marriage that had little to no religious founding or context.
- Society has progressed to the point where gays need the rights that governments have allowed to be tied up with religious dogma.
-Those non-religious issues need to be split from the religious concept of "marriage"
- The government should stay out of marriage.
- They SHOULD stay involved with the parts of marriage that aren't "marriage".

Some governments have taken the first steps to do this (i.e. UK)

Monklish
11-11-2009, 02:09 PM
The only reason "marriage" got taken up as the non-religious legal terminology in this country is because we too were an overwhelmingly Christian nation from our inception. I'm willing to bet that you'd see a similar reaction from most other faiths that shun homosexual behaviors if their respective terms for familial union were on the ballot.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:13 PM
Also, there are marriage rights. They supersede the rights of family and next of kin once you sign the docs. People file as married because it BENEFITS them, not just because that is the system that's been put in place. Its not necessarily a choice about who can visit someone in the hospital (pretty much anyone can visit in most situations) It's about making medical decisions for a spouse that might be unable to make such decisions for themselves.

*edit: if you are not married your family makes decisions when you cant make them for yourself. They get the $$$ when you kick the bucket.

These "marriage rights" you speak of are definitely not natural rights. Under the government you have more rights once you sign their docs. If only "benefits" them because the government says so. They shouldn't.

Yeah about hospital visitation rights I think anyone should be able to decide for themselves.

Bud Luster
11-11-2009, 02:16 PM
What the fuck do you mean "natural rights". There are no rights in nature.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:17 PM
So you claim to understand what I'm trying to debate and think that "the government should stay out of it" is a separate issue?

Are you sniffing glue?

"the government should stay out of it" is entirely the point. You just don't seem to understand the the points here so I'll outline it for you and then shut the fuck up.

- Marriage has existed always (even before Christians).
- It started as purely religious, but as society developed further it had legal connotations attached.
- Eventually larger secular governments evolved, and rules were applied to marriage that had little to no religious founding or context.
- Society has progressed to the point where gays need the rights that governments have allowed to be tied up with religious dogma.
-Those non-religious issues need to be split from the religious concept of "marriage"
- The government should stay out of marriage.
- They SHOULD stay involved with the parts of marriage that aren't "marriage".

Some governments have taken the first steps to do this (i.e. UK)

Dude. I've been reading this thread and contributing to it every once in a while since its inception. No one said what I said before I did. That's why I bothered to say it. You might have been talking about separation between church and state but no one was talking about separation between secular marriage and state. That's what I'm talking about. Perhaps I'm not the only one who should be paying more attention.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:19 PM
What the fuck do you mean "natural rights". There are no rights in nature.

Oh boy. We're not going through this debate again, are we?

I'll just tell you that I disagree and I made a pretty solid argument for natural rights a while ago (that was this thread, right?). The government didn't give you your right to life, but they did give you your "right" to marital bonuses and tax exemptions and that bullshit.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 02:21 PM
Dude. I've been reading this thread and contributing to it every once in a while since its inception. No one said what I said before I did. That's why I bothered to say it. You might have been talking about separation between church and state but no one was talking about separation between secular marriage and state. That's what I'm talking about. Perhaps I'm not the only one who should be paying more attention.

It doesn't matter how early you said it. You claim to follow what I was debating and then claimed that you were debating something else.

I might have been talking about separation of church and state but no one was tlaking about separation of secular marriage and state?

rly dude? I should pay attention? You're not even paying attention to yourself.

gaypalmsprings
11-11-2009, 02:23 PM
You people argue like drama queens. Is everyone gay?

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 02:23 PM
Oh boy. We're not going through this debate again, are we?

I'll just tell you that I disagree and I made a pretty solid argument for natural rights a while ago (that was this thread, right?). The government didn't give you your right to life, but they did give you your "right" to marital bonuses and tax exemptions and that bullshit.

no I agree with bud and would love to hear you expound on these "natrual rights". If you did explain this in this thread then it was far too cunning for me and I'd appreciate you reminding me.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:24 PM
It doesn't matter how early you said it. You claim to follow what I was debating and then claimed that you were debating something else.

I might have been talking about separation of church and state but no one was tlaking about separation of secular marriage and state?

rly dude? I should pay attention? You're not even paying attention to yourself.

...?

Stop wasting time being offended and try to keep the debate going. You don't have to talk about what I want to talk about, but don't try to force me to have your silly left-right debate.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:27 PM
no I agree with bud and would love to hear you expound on these "natrual rights". If you did explain this in this thread then it was far too cunning for me and I'd appreciate you reminding me.

Ok, first someone said this (page 7 I think, there was a long discussion about this):


And to the Tom/Randy debate over rights: I agree with Randy, inherent or natural rights don't exist simply because John Locke or Thomas Jefferson said they do, or because we've all been coddled at the teet for so long that we accept it as fact. We're just animals, we don't possess any rights by nature. These rights exist simply because they are promised to us by a government "we" created and continue maintain. Nature doesn't provide those rights, social institutions do.

And I said this:


The government never promised us rights. It promised us it would not infringe upon our rights. Read the First Amendment closely if you want an example.

But I agree with you, the rights do not exist because John Locke or Thomas Jefferson said so. They wouldn't have wanted you to believe that either. However, the idea of a right being "given" to you by the government is ludicrous. If you believe it is wrong for another man to take your life, liberty, property, etc. than you believe you have the right to it, correct? This would still be correct if you lived in Cuba or Antarctica.

If you don't like my argument Tom made a bunch of good cases for what I'm talking about too. And he's super old so you know he knows his shit.

edit: when i'm talking about a government giving you rights being ludicrous, in the context I was talking about natural rights like life, liberty, property & fruits of your labor.

Bud Luster
11-11-2009, 02:28 PM
The government didn't give you your right to life, but they did give you your "right" to marital bonuses and tax exemptions and that bullshit.

Actually, the government did give you your right to life. Without government then you have no rights.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 02:31 PM
I still don't understand what kind of right to life the government can extend to you. Anyone care to provide an example?

Bud Luster
11-11-2009, 02:33 PM
Monk is right, the govt tries to extend you the right to life (and other rights) If someone takes your life, then what fucking good is having the right to it?

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Actually, the government did give you your right to life. Without government then you have no rights.

Are you a Russian spy? I have a feeling...

Would you care to respond to the specific example I gave? Do you not agree that in Cuba or Antarctica you would still find it fundamentally wrong for someone to take your life without provocation? This is something you have from birth, as is your liberty. These can only be taken away by other people who are infringing upon them.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:39 PM
Monk is right, the govt tries to extend you the right to life (and other rights) If someone takes your life, then what fucking good is having the right to it?

People have freewill and can choose to infringe upon others' rights. That's the good thing about government - you can set up a justice system so that those people cannot infringe upon others' rights anymore.

The right to marital tax status is something you do not have without a government to give you that tax status. Therefore it is unnatural. The government does not give you your life or your liberty or your labor.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 02:41 PM
Actually the justice system doesn't so much make it so that others can't infringe on your so-called "rights" as it does punish them for doing so.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:42 PM
Right, but in the case of taking a life, that punishment is usually equivalent to stopping them from taking another (death or life jail).

edit: The justice system is there for punishment, and crimes deemed punishable are usually those that infringe upon life (murder) liberty (kidnapping or rape, for example) or property (theft). This is why smoking pot or crack shouldn't be a fucking crime.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 02:43 PM
Which still doesn't change the fact that someone's dead. Some right that is.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 02:45 PM
Ok, first someone said this (page 7 I think, there was a long discussion about this):



And I said this:



If you don't like my argument Tom made a bunch of good cases for what I'm talking about too. And he's super old so you know he knows his shit.

edit: when i'm talking about a government giving you rights being ludicrous, in the context I was talking about natural rights like life, liberty, property & fruits of your labor.


Tom didn't really make any cases (or at least I didn't see any), he simply rejected Randy's idea that there was no such thing as a "natural right".

Anyway I still don't see what you're getting at with this distinction between your natural rights and granted rights. And I tend to agree with Randy (and I don't do that lightly) that the notion of natural rights is fairly silly.

A right by its nature is something that is granted. Otherwise there's no need to mention it in the context of a "right" at all. It's just a truth. That's what Jefferson was getting at with "we hold these truths to be self evident" (and dammit I just heard a good story about how Ben Franklin edited that line but I forgot what it was. someone remind me if they know what I'm talking about). Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are "truths". The term u(i)nalianble rights in that context means they're NOT rights, but truths. A government can't grant it, and nor can anything else, not even nature. Nature couldn't give a shit.

But all this is ridiculous, and has very little practical significance in a debate about gay rights.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:47 PM
Which still doesn't change the fact that someone's dead. Some right that is.

Well people can take away your governmental rights too. If the government can give you rights they can take them away just as easily (PATRIOT Act, for example).

Weren't you arguing that the government gives you the right to life or were you simply saying that life is not a right?

If you were saying the latter why are you for universal health care?

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 02:48 PM
At this point, I don't think any of you remember what you are debating.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 02:52 PM
No one can grant you the right to life. I don't even understand how your follow up question relates. We don't have a natural right to health care either--it's simply a much smarter more pragmatic way to run a society.

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 02:55 PM
I grant you all the right to life by not killing you.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 02:55 PM
Well people can take away your governmental rights too. If the government can give you rights they can take them away just as easily (PATRIOT Act, for example).

Weren't you arguing that the government gives you the right to life or were you simply saying that life is not a right?

If you were saying the latter why are you for universal health care?

I would say the latter, and it's very easy to reconcile that with being for universal health care because there's nothing to reconcile.
The government granting universal health care is the government granting the right to of its citizens to receive medical treatment. It doesn't mean the government is granting you the right to live.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:57 PM
A right by its nature is something that is granted. Otherwise there's no need to mention it in the context of a "right" at all. It's just a truth. That's what Jefferson was getting at with "we hold these truths to be self evident" (and dammit I just heard a good story about how Ben Franklin edited that line but I forgot what it was. someone remind me if they know what I'm talking about). Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are "truths". The term u(i)nalianble rights in that context means they're NOT rights, but truths. A government can't grant it, and nor can anything else, not even nature. Nature couldn't give a shit.

Okay so I guess this debate is back to semantics. But I am not sure that your first sentence is correct - we usually say we "grant" rights but maybe that's just because the idea of what a "right" is has changed so much. Either way the point is that you have your life, your liberty, and your pursuit of happiness and it's universally considered a crime to take these away (at least in the good countries).:thu

The only reason it's a crime to take away your marriage license is because the government decided everyone who's in a committed relationship should have one. The government didn't decide you have liberty - if there were no government you'd still have liberty (I am not an anarchist).


But all this is ridiculous, and has very little practical significance in a debate about gay rights.

Well we're getting far from it but that's because I think one of the fundamental problems with the gay marriage movement is that it's a fight over the right to have something the government shouldn't have granted in the first place. If this were just about religious marriage the only fight would be between the anti-gay (for lack of a better term) churches and the pro-gay churches.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 02:58 PM
No one can grant you the right to life. I don't even understand how your follow up question relates. We don't have a natural right to health care either--it's simply a much smarter more pragmatic way to run a society.

Oh okay. No, it's just that many universal health care proponents use the word "right" to describe their aims.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 03:03 PM
I would say the latter, and it's very easy to reconcile that with being for universal health care because there's nothing to reconcile.
The government granting universal health care is the government granting the right to of its citizens to receive medical treatment. It doesn't mean the government is granting you the right to live.

Why doesn't the government just grant us the right to have a million dollars each? Then we could all afford health care. Why doesn't the government grant us the right to a job? Surely that's something that everyone needs and cannot live without.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 03:03 PM
I would've thought that since you're asking someone who has asserted that there is no such thing as a natural right you would realize I probably don't take that stance.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 03:06 PM
I would've thought that since you're asking someone who has asserted that there is no such thing as a natural right you would realize I probably don't take that stance.

People are hypocrites, so sorry I should have realized you were smarter than that.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 03:15 PM
Okay so I guess this debate is back to semantics. But I am not sure that your first sentence is correct - we usually say we "grant" rights but maybe that's just because the idea of what a "right" is has changed so much. Either way the point is that you have your life, your liberty, and your pursuit of happiness and it's universally considered a crime to take these away (at least in the good countries).:thu

I agree this is just semantics and of no use. I certainly wouldn't have chosen to direct the discussion that way. But anyway, no we say we "grant" rights because that's exactly what needs to happen for them to exist. Somthing has to protect (read: grant) the right being mentioned. Anyway life, liberty, and happiness are abstractions and aren't of much use in this debate.




The only reason it's a crime to take away your marriage license is because the government decided everyone who's in a committed relationship should have one. The government didn't decide you have liberty - if there were no government you'd still have liberty (I am not an anarchist).
The government decided everyone who's in a committed relationsihp should have a marriage license? I'm not sure you meant to say that.
What I think you were getting at is that the government decided not to give you marital rights without a marriage license. And yeah that's the problem, a problem that's been largely solved by the UK.



Well we're getting far from it but that's because I think one of the fundamental problems with the gay marriage movement is that it's a fight over the right to have something the government shouldn't have granted in the first place. If this were just about religious marriage the only fight would be between the anti-gay (for lack of a better term) churches and the pro-gay churches.
The only way I can resolve this contradiction you keep making is that you feel that there should be no such thing as marriage (in the legal context) or marital rights at all.

If you concede that there are portions of marital law that are useful and gays should have access to them then you baffle me.
This has little to do with gays fighting churches themselves. Those are private institutions and they have every right to discriminate if they wish. The only thing churches have to do with this matter is their prejedices are spilling over into secular law. This is why you CAN'T simply say that government should have nothing to do with marriage.

You seem to refuse to accept the distinction between religious marriage and secular marital rights which is why I suspect you of being deeply religious.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 03:28 PM
Why doesn't the government just grant us the right to have a million dollars each? Then we could all afford health care. Why doesn't the government grant us the right to a job? Surely that's something that everyone needs and cannot live without.

are you kidding? are you claiming ignorance of the most basic economic concept of all?


EDIT: The million dollars thing is just completely absurd, but there actually have been governments that have tried to grant the right to a job. They've all failed or are in the process of failing. And I think you'll find lots of people who'll take issue with the idea that a "job" in the sense you mean is a necessity for life.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 03:37 PM
Somthing has to protect (read: grant) the right being mentioned.

How are protecting and granting the same thing to you? If a guard is protecting your house from attack, does that mean he is granting you your house? No, and the same with government and rights. The Constitution guards your rights. If the guard attacks you instead, he is infringing upon your house, and if the government takes away your right to free speech you have the right to rebel. The government does not give you this right, and certainly wouldn't in that case - you simply have the power to do it.


The government decided everyone who's in a committed relationsihp should have a marriage license? I'm not sure you meant to say that.
What I think you were getting at is that the government decided not to give you marital rights without a marriage license. And yeah that's the problem, a problem that's been largely solved by the UK.

Correct, I was being hasty and exaggerating. But can you briefly explain the UK's solution you're talking about or direct me to a link?


The only way I can resolve this contradiction you keep making is that you feel that there should be no such thing as marriage (in the legal context) or marital rights at all.

Correct.


If you concede that there are portions of marital law that are useful and gays should have access to them then you baffle me.
This has little to do with gays fighting churches themselves. Those are private institutions and they have every right to discriminate if they wish. The only thing churches have to do with this matter is their prejedices are spilling over into secular law. This is why you CAN'T simply say that government should have nothing to do with marriage.

You mean if I don't concede? Well I'm not sure that I will. I'm not saying gays should have less access, I'm saying no one should have access because it's not necessary. Our government is so needlessly complex and this is part of it.

Also you're right, the government at most should stop churches from infringing upon secular law. The churches should be largely irrelevant in the gay marriage debate, but there are a lot of people in those churches so it's hard to shut them up no matter how irrelevant their argument is.


You seem to refuse to accept the distinction between religious marriage and secular marital rights which is why I suspect you of being deeply religious.

No, I promise you I'm not. What religion would you accuse me of following anyway? I think I should have been clearer when talking about pro-gay and anti-gay churches but I would like to see any other indication that I'm religious. And if I am religious I'm pretty fucking bad at it, don't you think?

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 03:41 PM
How are protecting and granting the same thing to you? If a guard is protecting your house from attack, does that mean he is granting you your house? No, and the same with government and rights. The Constitution guards your rights. If the guard attacks you instead, he is infringing upon your house, and if the government takes away your right to free speech you have the right to rebel. The government does not give you this right, and certainly wouldn't in that case - you simply have the power to do it.



Correct, I was being hasty and exaggerating. But can you briefly explain the UK's solution you're talking about or direct me to a link?



Correct.



You mean if I don't concede? Well I'm not sure that I will. I'm not saying gays should have less access, I'm saying no one should have access because it's not necessary. Our government is so needlessly complex and this is part of it.

Also you're right, the government at most should stop churches from infringing upon secular law. The churches should be largely irrelevant in the gay marriage debate, but there are a lot of people in those churches so it's hard to shut them up no matter how irrelevant their argument is.



No, I promise you I'm not. What religion would you accuse me of following anyway? I think I should have been clearer when talking about pro-gay and anti-gay churches but I would like to see any other indication that I'm religious. And if I am religious I'm pretty fucking bad at it, don't you think?


So in the end here you simply believe that there should be no such thing as marriage.
That's a far further stretch to than to accept that marriage will exist (and that many gays want it to) and that the government needs to, and inevitably will, change it's definition of the term.

I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about whether we should abolish marriage altogether.

EDIT: forgot about the UK thing. It's called a civil partnership. wiki it.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 03:42 PM
are you kidding? are you claiming ignorance of the most basic economic concept of all?


EDIT: The million dollars thing is just completely absurd, but there actually have been governments that have tried to grant the right to a job. They've all failed or are in the process of failing. And I think you'll find lots of people who'll take issue with the idea that a "job" in the sense you mean is a necessity for life.

All I'm saying is that the universal health care proposition is just as absurd. It is impossible to afford health care for all citizens. You can't just create money out of thin air. Even if the government could afford that, it wouldn't be right for it to grant us that "right". People have the responsibility to pay for their own treatments, their own food, their own shelter. In some countries (maybe China?) people simply save their money (novel idea) and pay for their own treatments when they need them. No health insurance, no universal health insurance.

By the way, food would have been a better example than jobs. Do you think everyone has the right to food? Why doesn't the government pay for that?

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 03:43 PM
In sum, psycobetabuckdown doesn't actually have a point. It's time to move on.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 03:45 PM
Jack rarely cares whether the opposing party is making anything even resembling a sensible argument. He's like a mountain climber. "Because it's there... and it's dumb."

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 03:46 PM
So in the end here you simply believe that there should be no such thing as marriage.
That's a far further stretch to than to accept that marriage will exist (and that many gays want it to) and that the government needs to, and inevitably will, change it's definition of the term.

I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about whether we should abolish marriage altogether.

No, marriage is fine. I plan to be married someday. I don't know where you saw that argument. But we live in such a government-dependent country, maybe that's why you don't understand what I'm saying about the government not being involved.

I will probably get married in a non-religious ceremony. But I don't think I should have rights because of that which gays and hippies don't have. Their relationship may be just as important as mine even if they didn't have a ceremony to celebrate it. The reason I would get married is symbolic and that's all.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 03:48 PM
In sum, psycobetabuckdown doesn't actually have a point. It's time to move on.


Jack rarely cares whether the opposing party is making anything even resembling a sensible argument. He's like a mountain climber. "Because it's there... and it's dumb."

Shit, have you guys never met a libertarian before? I didn't realize the things I have been talking about are unheard of concepts.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 03:50 PM
What does being a libertarian have to do with claiming that it's impossible to fund universal health care? Is there some pillar of the libertarian position I've never heard about that involves denying the possibility of something that already exists in dozens of nations throughout the western world?

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 03:53 PM
What does being a libertarian have to do with claiming that it's impossible to fund universal health care? Is there some pillar of the libertarian position I've never heard about that involves denying the possibility of something that already exists in dozens of nations throughout the western world?

Well I suppose it's possible if you tax the shit out of your citizens but then who's really paying for it? So we're choosing either tyranny or economic downfall. Not much of a choice.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 03:58 PM
You say that as if anyone actually thought that the government would be footing the bill for health care instead of taxpayers. You seem to keep arguing against points no one is making and no reasonable person would possibly imagine to be so, let alone bother making a case against.

It should also be noted that most of the countries that employ universal health care are hardly in any form of economic downfall, or at least not particularly more so than any other country.

So what, you think that there should be no publicly funded institutions of any kind? Do you ever intend to form opinions that have any kind of practical application or what?

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 03:58 PM
What I think you were getting at is that the government decided not to give you marital rights without a marriage license. And yeah that's the problem, a problem that's been largely solved by the UK.

Ok I looked that up and that's what I figured they had over there. I would support that if it would shut all the gays up about gay marriage.

MissingPerson
11-11-2009, 04:00 PM
Sweden: The Self-Assembly Pine Curtain.

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 04:01 PM
Libertarian concepts are not the problem here; it's your ability to logically express these concepts.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:02 PM
It should also be noted that most of the countries that employ universal health care are hardly in any form of economic downfall, or at least not particularly more so than any other country.

So what, you think that there should be no publicly funded institutions of any kind? Do you ever intend to form opinions that have any kind of practical application or what?

Well if the citizens voted for it and decided they really thought it was worth their shitload of tax dollars fine. But the way it's being proposed unconstitutionally in America is tyranny.

There are so many public institutions and departments and whatever you want to call them that we don't need I don't even know where to begin.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:03 PM
Libertarian concepts are not the problem here; it's your ability to logically express these concepts.

If you'd like to refute any of them I'd be glad to hear it. Or at least point me to an example of something I didn't logically express without apologizing afterwards and clarifying myself.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 04:07 PM
What in the world is unconstitutional about universal health care?

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 04:08 PM
Ok I looked that up and that's what I figured they had over there. I would support that if it would shut all the gays up about gay marriage.

I am very usettled by the fact that you've taken my position.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:13 PM
What in the world is unconstitutional about universal health care?

Nowhere in the constitution is the power to grant it given to the U.S. government. There are powers specifically enumerated in the document, and that is not even close to one of them.


I am very usettled by the fact that you've taken my position.

I took your position a while ago but you and Randy were covering it pretty well. However, I only take that position in so far as this country isn't even close to taking my position, that marriages AND civil partnerships have no place in government.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 04:14 PM
What in the world is unconstitutional about universal health care?

our right to not be treated like frenchmen. I'm pretty sure that's in the constitution somewhere.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 04:19 PM
Nowhere in the constitution is the power to grant it given to the U.S. government. There are powers specifically enumerated in the document, and that is not even close to one of them.

That doesn't make it unconstitutional. It has to contradict something in the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 04:20 PM
I'm honestly not sure if you understand anything about our country or government in general at all.

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 04:21 PM
psycobetabuckdown, do you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on your car?

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:22 PM
That doesn't make it unconstitutional. It has to contradict something in the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

10th Amendment.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 04:23 PM
our right to not be treated like frenchmen. I'm pretty sure that's in the constitution somewhere.

That was a provision in one of the early drafts, I think the same one that had the word "suckers" in it.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:25 PM
psycobetabuckdown, do you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on your car?

No. I would if I had my own car (not my parents') and a bumper sticker. Ron Paul is great. Libertarianism will be taking over the GOP in 2012.

edit: so you don't actually have a problem with anything I said or you're just too lazy to make an actual argument or even show me where I was illogical?

Monklish
11-11-2009, 04:30 PM
10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment effectively states that the Fed has no power over the states beyond those granted in the Constitution unless Congress votes new powers into existence. The Constitution is a living document.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:32 PM
They're welcome to amend the constitution but they can't just sign a bill. It takes more than that.

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 04:33 PM
edit: so you don't actually have a problem with anything I said or you're just too lazy to make an actual argument or even show me where I was illogical?

Replace "lazy" with "busy" and you've got it, but the fact that your actual point wasn't clear for the past couple pages was evidence enough for me.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:33 PM
http://www.freefoto.com/images/1214/03/1214_03_2---Portland--Maine--USA_web.jpg

guest-1185
11-11-2009, 04:35 PM
10th Amendment.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Universal healthcare seems pretty in line with providing for the general welfare of our citizens.

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 04:37 PM
Snap.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:39 PM
That's quite a vague clause and could also equally be used to argue that everyone has the right to food. Because people die without food, right?

Really, the government can't just do whatever they want - I didn't make that up.

guest-1185
11-11-2009, 04:42 PM
Our gov't already has programs in place to make food accessible to those in need. I believe this is a good thing.

And on a total personal side note that has nothing to do with gay marriage:

There's something to be said for gov't investing in its citizens for the good and development of society as a whole.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 04:44 PM
That's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about Universal Food. What if we had a Universal Food bill go through Congress that said everyone has a fundamental right to food and that right shall not be infringed? It'd be great if no one was ever hungry but there are no resources to support it.

guest-1185
11-11-2009, 04:59 PM
If our elected representatives passed a Universal Food bill through our legislative process then so be it. That's how our representative democracy works. Those who represent the majority of the electorate from a certain area make decisions on behalf that electorate. If the representative votes against the will of the electorate they'll probably lose the next election. We all know this.

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what point your trying to make with the hypothetical Universal Food question. That you think Universal Food would be unconstitutional?

(P.S. I feel like a dope every time I type "Universal Food")

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 05:03 PM
this debate is going in circles now.

nobody has convinced anybody of anything.

/thread.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 05:05 PM
Our representatives have absolutely no power to pass anything unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the duty to overturn any bill that they deem is so. That they don't is the problem with our Supreme Court, but it's also on our legislators to not pass stupid bills.

Yes, Universal Food would be unconstitutional and the point was that it is equally unconstitutional to Universal Healthcare. One's even more illogical than the other but they're both equally illegal.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 05:08 PM
this debate is going in circles now.

nobody has convinced anybody of anything.

/thread.

Have you ever really had a debate online or IRL where someone admitted that they were wrong and the conversation had changed their mind? Usually when that happens someone stops posting. People are stubborn.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 05:09 PM
Every time our representatives make an amendment they are passing something unconstitutional by changing the constitution. I don't even see how Universal Food would be unconstitutional, but if they really wanted to do it that's how they would.

You're still not making a point or any sense.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 05:13 PM
Every time our representatives make an amendment they are passing something unconstitutional by changing the constitution. I don't even see how Universal Food would be unconstitutional, but if they really wanted to do it that's how they would.

You're still not making a point or any sense.

What the fuck? The constitution allows for amendments to the constitution. It's only unconstitutional to pass the bill without amending it. Do you get this at all? The only provision is that the new amendment cannot contradict anything else in the constitution, and as far as I know even stupid bills like Universal healthcare or food would not contradict anything. But they would never pass in today's society thank God.

guest-1185
11-11-2009, 05:15 PM
Well, all I can really do at this point is refer you to my post at the top of this page.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 05:17 PM
Or you can agree with me...

Monklish
11-11-2009, 05:19 PM
Actually new amendments frequently contradict existing parts of the Constitution. For example, giving women and blacks full voting rights. And yes, this still doesn't address the fact that your Universal Food hypothesis has been pretty well covered by Boarder.

R u rtard?

guest-1185
11-11-2009, 05:20 PM
Every time our representatives make an amendment they are passing something unconstitutional by changing the constitution. I don't even see how Universal Food would be unconstitutional, but if they really wanted to do it that's how they would.

You're still not making a point or any sense.

Article five in the constitution states the document can be amended so long as said amendment passes with a certain percentage of Congress. Like you said, it's living.


Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.



Amending the constitution is not unconstitutional.

mountmccabe
11-11-2009, 05:23 PM
Also "the covenant of marriage" is extraneous bits piled on mated pairs. Piled on over the centuries, by various governments and religions, which, yes, used to be much the same thing in most cases. I don't get, though, how you're granting primacy to the religious aspect rather than the governmental aspect. They were one, they both get the claim.


you're restating my point. I'm granting primacy to the religious context for "marriage" because initially it was a religious concept. Marriages didn't spring into existence and immediately be validly performed by a justice of the peace or captian of a ship. The governmental aspects you're talking about are NEW relative to the religious ones. All the "bits piled on to mated pairs" are NOT what we're calling marriage here. The whole point is that they are not the same thing. You should be able to have all those bits that were piled on without infringing upon the religious context.

When you strip out all the NEW social issues like taxes, estate rights, hospital visitations, etc. etc., you're left with a word that describes a religious covenant. A method ancient people developed to scare other men out of fucking their wives and daughters (and vice versa) by threatening punishment from God. Maybe for some cultures it was a pretext to extract a dowry. Whatever the reasons they had, they've developed a sacred notion of this covenant, and this is what "marriage" means to some of these people.

I am playing through this in my head and I've already gone through several iterations. I am considering ancient government/religious/community concerns to be the same, because they were all the same thing. Marriage - and the keeping other men away from your wife (that is to say, inheritance rights) and getting dowries - is important to the government, your religion, your community. That's how you get a stable community to allow you to come up with things such as religion and government (which in turns helps you to be a stable community which allows you to separate things such as religion and government so they can start fighting for superiority.)

That is, I disagree that the governmental concern with marriage is new relative to the religious concern with marriage. I dispute this because I think they are of exactly the same age.

The covenant bullshit was thrown on after the fact. They recognized that family and marriage were good for a society and therefore for their religion and have thus come up with ceremonies and stories and the whole "God started this with Adam and Eve" sort of thing to bolster marriage and make religion look good.



Now gay people want in on this covenant. They want to be initiated into the rites of a private club (which has unfortunately been confused with government). THIS is what enrages religious people. It sounds silly but, we're talking about religion here, so silly is the baseline. Do you really think that if you picked apart the new social implications, like the taxes and hospital visitations, that religious folks would oppose them as vehemently?

Not as vehemently, no. But, again, I'm thinking it'd mean a pick of a percent or two in the votes.

It's not a game changer.

And I would consider the cost too high. It certainly is not my decision to make, though.



You have to split the concept of "marriage" and a legal partnership. We understand that marriage, and the rights that are confered with marriage are two different things, but these zealots can't understand that yet. They wont understand it until you give it a different name. Church and state are supposed to be separate. Create a secular version of marriage so that the branwashed masses can keep their covenant.

After that any particular Church that is progressive enough grant a gay couple their sacred covenant can do as they please. It shouldn't be a government issue at that point.

Husband. Wife. Engaged. Divorced (ha.) Wedding. These are big, heavy words. And because they've been a part of the secular landscape for so long, they're important to more than just religious folk. Giving up all that is really rather significant.

But, again, it'sn't my decision to make.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 05:31 PM
Actually new amendments frequently contradict existing parts of the Constitution. For example, giving women and blacks full voting rights. And yes, this still doesn't address the fact that your Universal Food hypothesis has been pretty well covered by Boarder.

R u rtard?

And which part of the Constitution might that be? Would it be any of the parts that have been stricken from the document?

Is this what you do when you can't debate any more, start throwing insults around? YOU'RE WRONG. Not about everything, but definitely about this.

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 05:39 PM
psycobetabuckdown, you are still in high school, aren't you?

greghead
11-11-2009, 05:41 PM
Nowhere in the constitution is the power to grant it given to the U.S. government. There are powers specifically enumerated in the document, and that is not even close to one of them.

There's a little thing in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution commonly referred to as the "necessary and proper clause." Ring a bell?

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Basically, it states that the Legislative branch is able to legally perform acts not specifically enumerated in the Constitution so long as they are in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the original document. Obviously, the authors of the Constitution could not foresee every change that would be wrought in this country, though they did have the foresight to create a clause that would allow the Constitution/Government a good deal of flexibility. I've got a hunch that promoting the health and well-being of the populace is well in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

EDIT: My apologies if this comes too late.

greghead
11-11-2009, 05:47 PM
And which part of the Constitution might that be? Would it be any of the parts that have been stricken from the document?

Is this what you do when you can't debate any more, start throwing insults around? YOU'RE WRONG. Not about everything, but definitely about this.

Stricken from the Constitution? What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing has ever been deleted from the Constitution.

Please please please take a Constitutional history course when you get to college, it will prevent from making statements as retarded as this one. And I'm sorry, but Monk is right.

TomAz
11-11-2009, 05:55 PM
Actually new amendments frequently contradict existing parts of the Constitution.

Right. that's what an amendment does. it changes what's there already. Blacks can't vote, now blacks can vote. what you call contradiction I call change.

But the Universal Food thing.. ugh. Stupid idea, yes; unconstitutional, no.

What would be unconstitutional is if the Universal Food act mandated that farmers and food corporations and McDonald's had to give away food to anyone who asked for it. Or if the government decided it was going to nationalize all food production and distribution.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 05:56 PM
Stricken from the Constitution? What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing has ever been deleted from the Constitution.

Please please please take a Constitutional history course when you get to college, it will prevent from making statements as retarded as this one. And I'm sorry, but Monk is right.

Oh god. Not only was I being sarcastic, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

There's a process for getting rid of amendments (repealing them). When you get to high school you'll learn that.

moomoo
11-11-2009, 05:57 PM
I'll pay a moderator a huge lump sum of money to delete this stinking shit pile of a thread.


PM your paypal, thanks.

MissingPerson
11-11-2009, 05:57 PM
I dunno, I think it would be a shame for the world to miss out on seeing somebody more or less use a Constitutional amendment to argue that the Constitution can't be amended.

TomAz
11-11-2009, 05:58 PM
Nothing has ever been deleted from the Constitution.

One amendment has been repealed, so that technically disproves this statement.

But if you're talking the core, base, Constitution-without-amendments -- then you're right. But that doesn't mean we couldn't. We could amend the constitution to have a unicameral Congress and two presidents if we wanted to.

or, more realistically: we could amend the constitution to do away with the electoral college. This has been and continues to be seriously proposed and discussed.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 05:59 PM
There's a little thing in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution commonly referred to as the "necessary and proper clause." Ring a bell?

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Basically, it states that the Legislative branch is able to legally perform acts not specifically enumerated in the Constitution so long as they are in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the original document. Obviously, the authors of the Constitution could not foresee every change that would be wrought in this country, though they did have the foresight to create a clause that would allow the Constitution/Government a good deal of flexibility. I've got a hunch that promoting the health and well-being of the populace is well in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

EDIT: My apologies if this comes too late.

It's not in the spirit of the original document! Promoting the health and well-being is different from mandating that everyone have something that doesn't exist (money and resources for healing everyone's ailments).

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 06:03 PM
Right. that's what an amendment does. it changes what's there already. Blacks can't vote, now blacks can vote. what you call contradiction I call change.

But the Universal Food thing.. ugh. Stupid idea, yes; unconstitutional, no.

What would be unconstitutional is if the Universal Food act mandated that farmers and food corporations and McDonald's had to give away food to anyone who asked for it. Or if the government decided it was going to nationalize all food production and distribution.

Randy realized he was wrong and made some outlandish statement with no basis in fact. No one would possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously.

Well that's what I meant by Universal Food bill. What I was talking about would be very unconstitutional, as would a similar Universal Health care bill.

edit: Tom, even if you don't agree with everything I've been saying, can you talk any sense into anyone here? It's hard fighting a one-sided battle all day over several topics. But I feel it's right.

TomAz
11-11-2009, 06:05 PM
I dunno, man. I'm pretty close to drunk and have to go to a business dinner in less than an hour.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 06:07 PM
Well I'm gonna go have a life too once the Warriors game is over...but for now I guess I'll keep on trucking.

TomAz
11-11-2009, 06:14 PM
Lots of wives take it up the ass. And yet they still get to be married and file married-and-filing-jointly tax returns. Why deny Bruce that right? he and Tim deserve it as much as Lisa and Derek.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 06:16 PM
Did anyone mention bestiality is legal in Maine? I forgot to bring up that point. You can't marry an animal though.

TomAz
11-11-2009, 06:17 PM
speciesist. zoophobes.

TomAz
11-11-2009, 06:20 PM
It's not in the spirit of the original document! Promoting the health and well-being is different from mandating that everyone have something that doesn't exist (money and resources for healing everyone's ailments).

No one complains that the government runs the army though*. We have a monopolistic, government-run, "socialized" military. And it costs a shitload of money. Is that unconstitutional?


* I mean, no one, or at least no serious person, claims that we should have private army corporatiosn to provide for the nationald defense. Many people complain about how the government runs the army but that's different.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 06:24 PM
No one complains that the government runs the army though*. We have a monopolistic, government-run, "socialized" military. And it costs a shitload of money. Is that unconstitutional?


* I mean, no one, or at least no serious person, claims that we should have private army corporatiosn to provide for the nationald defense. Many people complain about how the government runs the army but that's different.

Article I, Section 8 - The Legislative Branch - "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy"

Article II, Section 2 - The Executive Branch - "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

edit: maybe the money part, but I couldn't give you an example

TomAz
11-11-2009, 06:26 PM
yeah so unconstitutional was the wrong question.

Is it wrong, in principle, that the government runs the miliatry? or the highways? or the police?

If not, how does that same logic not apply to healthcare*?




* edit - that is, the 60% of healthcare that the government doesn't already run?

edit2 this is the wrong thread for trhis, sorry. gays should be allowed to marry, call it marriage, and boof each other and get the tax deduction just like the rest of us.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 06:40 PM
yeah so unconstitutional was the wrong question.

Is it wrong, in principle, that the government runs the miliatry? or the highways? or the police?

If not, how does that same logic not apply to healthcare*?




* edit - that is, the 60% of healthcare that the government doesn't already run?

edit2 this is the wrong thread for trhis, sorry. gays should be allowed to marry, call it marriage, and boof each other and get the tax deduction just like the rest of us.

Maybe if you phrase it in terms of the constitutionality of marriage by the state...

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 06:42 PM
I am playing through this in my head and I've already gone through several iterations. I am considering ancient government/religious/community concerns to be the same, because they were all the same thing. Marriage - and the keeping other men away from your wife (that is to say, inheritance rights) and getting dowries - is important to the government, your religion, your community. That's how you get a stable community to allow you to come up with things such as religion and government (which in turns helps you to be a stable community which allows you to separate things such as religion and government so they can start fighting for superiority.)


That is, I disagree that the governmental concern with marriage is new relative to the religious concern with marriage. I dispute this because I think they are of exactly the same age.

They're not the same thing and they're not the same age. I think you're giving too much importance to the word marriage over the basic concept of a humans evolving bonds for the safety of themselves and children. That's been happening effectively forever. This evolved instinct I believe happened before we were *cough*smart enough to develop religion (that is to say before we became smart enough to truly exploit each other instead of being honest thugs). It wasn't until religion that all the rituals and ceremony surrounding it started. Lots of religious texts sprung up that laid out laws for a lot of things that later became secular matters, like property and such. Throughout time a lot if of laws that were probably religious based originally became secular as people started to blend around religions evolved and splintered. So maybe you're right that they started as as the same thing (although I don't think so), but the point is these marital rights at issue are no longer religious, or yes, just plain new.



The covenant bullshit was thrown on after the fact. They recognized that family and marriage were good for a society and therefore for their religion and have thus come up with ceremonies and stories and the whole "God started this with Adam and Eve" sort of thing to bolster marriage and make religion look good.

right it's these quaint little stories and what they say about their marriage that these people are most concerned about preserving. For many americans the religion and nationalism are inextricably tied. They don't truly believe in separation of church and state. They believe in separation of your church and my state/church. Their god has a hard on america. The bible and the constitution are almost equal parts of their canon. The bible says marriage is good. It also says gays are bad. The concepts of gays and marriage are incompatible to them. Modifying the constitution to some is like modifying the bible.
You ask a deeply religious citizen if the state should allow gay marriage and all they see is the religion. They refuse to acknowledge the difference between their religion and the rest of their law.

This is why a responsible government has to break the issue down to manageable pieces. Instead of asking citizens if they'll accept gay marriage they should ask them if they'll grant fellow citizens who happen to be gay the rights that go along with marriage. It's not really a compromise. It's a bootleg play-action. That's how a lot of legislation is done.



Not as vehemently, no. But, again, I'm thinking it'd mean a pick of a percent or two in the votes.


It's not a game changer.


And I would consider the cost too high. It certainly is not my decision to make, though.

I strongly disagree. I think re-branding gay marriage would offer enough distinction so that hardcore anti-gay marriage folks could still feel as though they've retained a measure of superiority, what they have is better than what gays have because its sacred (and if their church were to ever to marry gays then they could easily leave that church). It would also offer them an opportunity to feel as though they're compromising, which would give them an even greater measure of superiority. It's really their children they're worried about. They can't trust their children in a society that might pollute them into thinking there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. But kids are smart (read: simple) enough to not see the difference.

I think this is at least a 5% issue, which in many places could be the difference. Once you get a few states the rest eventually fall in line. Right now the groundswell is going the wrong way, and it could be a few percentage points.

And I'm not sure how you figure it'll cost too much.



Husband. Wife. Engaged. Divorced (ha.) Wedding. These are big, heavy words. And because they've been a part of the secular landscape for so long, they're important to more than just religious folk. Giving up all that is really rather significant.

But, again, it'sn't my decision to make.
again just words. It's not relious folk that I'm suggesting give the words. It's gays. (although I'm sure anti-gay marriage folks would be thrilled if "divorce" were a common term in the eventual gay married community).
I'm not sure why you think non-religious folk care that much about gay people using the words. These are people who probably dont' feel that their marriage is tainted by gay marriage.

mountmccabe
11-11-2009, 06:43 PM
Libertarian concepts are not the problem here; it's your ability to logically express these concepts.

Hey, we agree on a thing.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 06:48 PM
Great. So you have a problem with the way I was expressing my opinions too? Where?

mountmccabe
11-11-2009, 06:52 PM
There are very few things you've said in this thread that I've followed.

Doesn't matter much, though, you've been arguing about entirely different subjects. I think, at least.

gaypalmsprings
11-11-2009, 06:56 PM
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j25/JodsBHD/Personal%20Pictures/MySpace%20Comments/inflatable_bonking_sheep.jpg

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 06:56 PM
There are very few things you've said in this thread that I've followed.

Doesn't matter much, though, you've been arguing about entirely different subjects. I think, at least.

I realize the concepts I've been talking about aren't common in the national dialogue. I think I'm pretty good with English though.

I was approaching the debate from a different direction, but it was pretty much the same subject.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 06:58 PM
Psycho, we're not just fucking with you, man. Maybe you're drunk or just ill-informed or out of sorts or something, but pretty much everything you've said tonight has made fuck-all for sense. I don't know what you think you proved me wrong about or what point you think your silly Universal unconstitutionality argument is making, but you need to take a step back.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 07:05 PM
there are a dozen issues being discussed in this thread, most of which are distractions from the original issue. i was gone all day and came back to posts about universal food? wtf.

like the opposing sides in this thread, the nation is fundamentally divided on what the true origin of marriage as we know it is. there are those that believe that religion spawned marriage and others that think marriage existed prior to religion. until we clarify this with evidence this debate is going nowhere.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:10 PM
No, see you still after all this don't get what the argument is, which is why it isn't getting anywhere. It's not whether marriage as a general concept existed before religion, it's whether "marriage" as a word existed prior to its Christian meaning. Which it didn't. And you should just shut the fuck up about it already because you keep arguing entirely different things that are wholly immaterial.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 07:21 PM
No, see you still after all this don't get what the argument is, which is why it isn't getting anywhere. It's not whether marriage as a general concept existed before religion, it's whether "marriage" as a word existed prior to its Christian meaning. Which it didn't. And you should just shut the fuck up about it already because you keep arguing entirely different things that are wholly immaterial.


monk i pretty much stopped considering anything you said as remotely legitimate when you tried and epicly failed to call me out on using unalienable instead of inalienable.


and my last post was referring to the word marriage. the only thing youve clarified is that it was created in 13th century england and then assumed that it was a christian term. this will be the fourth time i ask you for evidence to back this up.

mountmccabe
11-11-2009, 07:22 PM
No, see you still after all this don't get what the argument is, which is why it isn't getting anywhere. It's not whether marriage as a general concept existed before religion, it's whether "marriage" as a word existed prior to its Christian meaning. Which it didn't. And you should just shut the fuck up about it already because you keep arguing entirely different things that are wholly immaterial.

That might possibly be the stupidest point you've ever tried to make. And this is the third or fourth time you've tried to make it in this thread. A half a dozen more and I might think you actually think that it means anything.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:23 PM
Try any dictionary for evidence of its derivation and time period, as far as whether or not it was a Christian term, well, stop being an idiot.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:24 PM
That might possibly be the stupidest point you've ever tried to make. And this is the third or fourth time you've tried to make it in this thread. A half a dozen more and I might think you actually think that it means anything.

Apparently you and Hammerhead suffer from the same failure to grasp why this is relevant to the current debate. I just don't see how it's possible that you find it so difficult.

guest-1185
11-11-2009, 07:30 PM
Did anyone mention bestiality is legal in Maine? I forgot to bring up that point. You can't marry an animal though.

Well, look at that. Amyzzz is moving to Maine.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 07:31 PM
Try any dictionary for evidence of its derivation and time period, as far as whether or not it was a Christian term, well, stop being an idiot.

please point me to the dictionary that says in its definition that marriage is a christian term. please. please.

your logic is 13th century+christian country=christian term. this is an assumption, not a fact. but wait you don't believe in facts because every time i ask you for one that isn't just something that you purport to be a fact you fail to produce one. this is my 5th time im asking for evidence. maybe we can get to 10? 100 by the time this debate is over?

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:33 PM
What does your beloved textbook you were quoting earlier have to say about marriage in England around 1300?

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 07:33 PM
Apparently you and Hammerhead suffer from the same failure to grasp why this is relevant to the current debate. I just don't see how it's possible that you find it so difficult.

i don't discount the importance of the origin of the word marriage in this debate. i'm just asking for something to prove that this was a christian term first. especially since the languages that it was derived from didn't carry with them the christian denotation.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:34 PM
I already went through college, kid. I don't need to go google searching for shit I already studied.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 07:39 PM
The etymology of marriage in the literal sense of being the process or state of being joined doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if christians invented it or were the first to use it. It's really about what the word means today.

The point of the word debate is:

If gays can be happy getting something equivalent with another name that doesn't carry the religious connotations then they may getting sooner rather than later. They could even go and get their church ceremony if they really want on at a church that would grant it (and accept payment for it)

If they insist on the word just as a fuck you to ignorant people then they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

mountmccabe
11-11-2009, 07:42 PM
Apparently you and Hammerhead suffer from the same failure to grasp why this is relevant to the current debate. I just don't see how it's possible that you find it so difficult.

The debate is about the word "marriage" but only because it has been used to refer to the concept for the last eight centuries. I would say - and have said in this thread before - that those eight centuries are rather important.

That is to say, it isn't that I don't see how what you are saying is relevant, it is that I disagree. I, however, am expressing this in a way that I hope is clear and evenhanded. And you are playing around, thinking yourself clever and being an ass.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:43 PM
Oh please, you did quite your fair share of throwing smug shit my way earlier in this thread yourself, John, as you like to do with me.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 07:45 PM
What does your beloved textbook you were quoting earlier have to say about marriage in England around 1300?

1) you still haven't answered my question. pretty soon you're gonna run out of ways to dodge my question man. responding to a question with a question isn't answering my question.

*edit* this is the question of evidence. you still haven't provided any.


2) i did provide a response on early Christianity's position on marriage. you either didn't read it or just flat out ignored it. my guess is the latter since you tried to say i only referenced one source when i referenced 3. here's what i posted on the matter. its not necessarily an explicit description of what the relationship between Christianity and marriage was in the 13th century but Boswell argues that the early christians didn't want to get married for a variety of reasons. it wasn't until later that christianity embraced marriage, which is why i argue that marriage existed in europe before christianity did since in order for early christians to be averse to marriage, the institution had to have already been in place since you can't be opposed to something that didn't yet exist (sorry for the run-on sentence). marriage as a custom and in its english-language form has from the beginning had civil issues attached to it like property, etc. this is what i posted, not from that evil book that you know nothing about and yet still criticize. btw Boswell was a professor at yale and a noted historian.



you seem to believe that marriage as we know it is the result of christian practice. its not. In his book, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe," Boswell contends, "early Christianity was hostile to marital and kinship obligations to a degree unimaginable to any previous reformers since Plato. Many early Christians believed that marriage undermined the rigors self control needed to achieve spiritual salvation." Implicit in this argument is the existence of civil marriages prior to christian marriages (read more below on marriage throughout human history). Christianity emerged in a time period where marriage was already a feature well embedded in European culture. The Boswell Thesis is a collection of academic essays summarizing his views. Matthew Kuefler argues that that Christiany came into existence in an atmosphere of Greek and Roman tolerance for same sex eroticism and that nothing in the christian scriptures or early tradition required a hostile assessment of homosexuality. John Boswell became a controversial figure because of his unpopular assessment of Christianity's earlier views on marriage, but he was also a well educated Yale professor who's commentary on the matter does hold some considerable academic merit.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 07:48 PM
I already went through college, kid. I don't need to go google searching for shit I already studied.

and it obviously worked out for you since you couldn't even make the correlation b/w the words unalienable and inalienable. im never gonna let this one go btw.

*edit

just out of curiosity, what was your major?

mountmccabe
11-11-2009, 07:48 PM
The point of the word debate is:

If gays can be happy getting something that eventually might even be legally equivalent with another name that doesn't carry the religious or cultural connotations then they may be getting it a little bit sooner rather than later. They could even go and get their church ceremony if they really want on at a church that would grant it (and accept payment for it)

If they insist on the word just as a stop saying fuck you to us, you ignorant people then they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Fixed.

I can't say I really disagree so much.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:49 PM
The reason I didn't respond to that very nice paragraph of shit you copied is that you're referring to a completely different time period. All that shit is relevant if you're discussing pre-1000 A.D. Christian attitudes towards marriage. Which is not what we're talking about. That's why I didn't bother.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 07:53 PM
The etymology of marriage in the literal sense of being the process or state of being joined doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if christians invented it or were the first to use it. It's really about what the word means today.

The point of the word debate is:

If gays can be happy getting something equivalent with another name that doesn't carry the religious connotations then they may getting sooner rather than later. They could even go and get their church ceremony if they really want on at a church that would grant it (and accept payment for it)

If they insist on the word just as a fuck you to ignorant people then they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces.


i can agree with this to a certain extent. i still think the meaning of the word marriage does matter. marriage is a HUGE part of our culture. its something little girls (and sometimes little gay boys) dream about and begin planning when they're 6. just because people are gay, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't also value the word marriage to signify the eternal bond of their love for their partner as much as straight people. in this case, the word IS exteremely important to them because it represents social acceptance of their union as indistinguishable from a straight union.

but yes, getting over the marriage thing for now would speed up the process. this nobody can deny.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:54 PM
The reason I kept correcting you is that our founding fathers were actually wrong. "Unalienable" is a bastard term, like "normality." If you refer to an Oxford English, you'll find that only "inalienable" has an actual definition, while "unalienable" is simply defined as a synonym for "inalienable."

My major, never officially declared, was English.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 07:55 PM
Just one of several grammatical missteps in the documents that founded our country. "A more perfect union" was another one that always pissed me off.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 07:59 PM
The reason I kept correcting you is that our founding fathers were actually wrong. "Unalienable" is a bastard term, like "normality." If you refer to an Oxford English, you'll find that only "inalienable" has an actual definition, while "unalienable" is simply defined as a synonym for "inalienable."

My major, never officially declared, was English.

im aware of this but just because inalienable points to unalienable for a definition doesn't mean its a bastard word. but yes, i do concede that inalienable is probably the more common way to say the word

i was just saying that it was pretty retarded to call me illiterate for using a word that was, well, a real word that held the same exact meaning. yeah, i was butthurt.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 08:02 PM
The reason I didn't respond to that very nice paragraph of shit you copied is that you're referring to a completely different time period. All that shit is relevant if you're discussing pre-1000 A.D. Christian attitudes towards marriage. Which is not what we're talking about. That's why I didn't bother.

okay so i dont have the book anymore and i can't pinpoint exactly when he's talking about but the book is about marriage, homosexual relations, and the interplay of the former with christianity in pre-modern europe. he does talk at length about christianity in england and i'd say thats relevant if you're trying to determine a religious or secular origin of the word marriage in the english language.

*edit

and i say this as a partial concession to the possibility that this source didn't deal explicitly with 13th century england. i only read a chapter and it was in the beginning portion of the book

Monklish
11-11-2009, 08:03 PM
it's the little things that separate the cognoscenti from the scum. Yes, it's a real word, but think of it this way--now you know which one will reveal you to other smart people as a man who cares about the details of his language enough to know the distinction. Don't take a correction as an affront, take it as a helping hand.

I just happened to know that it was a bastard word from my father--one of the most vehement grammar nazis ever--going off on a tangent about how the founding fathers were illiterate douchebags one drunken night.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 08:09 PM
Don't take a correction as an affront, take it as a helping hand.


a correction is a taken as an affront when its immediately followed by calling someone an illiterate fuckbag. this is especially true when i was using a acceptable-albeit not ideal-form of the word. something like "hey, i know you're using the word unalienable, but the better way to say that would be inalienable." this debate, and specifically our little back and forth banter, would have been a lot more civil if you argued without being condescending and rude. seriously dude if you laid off the douche sauce a little i think people would be more receptive to what you're saying, its not like you don't have legit points otherwise i wouldn't bother trying to counter them.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 08:10 PM
I'm not gonna look up shit to cite, but the short version is this: you actually have a very strong case in support of your position leading up to right around the year 1300. That's what I was very specific about laying that out there. I forget exactly why I remember this in particular, but it was in the 1250-1350 period that the french word became adapted to English and the church became the place where people got married. Prior to this period marriage did exist as a term but in the regular sense of the joining of two things (in French and Old English, though). Entrance into this phase of the medieval period brought with it the new significance of "marriage," and it made a swooping transition from a more informal sort of ceremony (jumping over swords and that sort) into something that had to be recognized by God. The church's involvement also brought with it a bunch of annoying changes like renouncing divorce (or whatever they called it back then) as an unholy act and some other crap too. I can't remember too much, I'm on rather a lot of Dilaudid.

Monklish
11-11-2009, 08:11 PM
I call everybody illiterate fuckbags, don't take it so personally ya prissy little jizzmop.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 08:23 PM
I'm not gonna look up shit to cite, but the short version is this: you actually have a very strong case in support of your position leading up to right around the year 1300. That's what I was very specific about laying that out there. I forget exactly why I remember this in particular, but it was in the 1250-1350 period that the french word became adapted to English and the church became the place where people got married. Prior to this period marriage did exist as a term but in the regular sense of the joining of two things (in French and Old English, though). Entrance into this phase of the medieval period brought with it the new significance of "marriage," and it made a swooping transition from a more informal sort of ceremony (jumping over swords and that sort) into something that had to be recognized by God. The church's involvement also brought with it a bunch of annoying changes like renouncing divorce (or whatever they called it back then) as an unholy act and some other crap too. I can't remember too much, I'm on rather a lot of Dilaudid.

i know what you're saying but the latin derivitive (of which the french word "marier" came from) did carry in at least one of its meanings the designation of a ceremonial union of persons like what we celebrate here. marriages, or rather the latin term for it (cant remember off the top of my head), did occur in the roman empire. this is not to say that you're incorrect in stating it as a joining of two things as we even use the word marriage today to denote more than the union of persons. the marriage of blueberries and yougurt into a delicious parfait for example. none of what i just said explains whether or not christianity adopted these terms to create marriage as we know to do, im just trying to say that there is a pretty clear etymological history from latin that may give us insight into how it came to be adopted into the english language. it would take some serious, serious historical digging to pinpoint if its earliest usage was christian in nature or not. so i guess lets just drop it already because theres really no way for us to be certain with out an exorbitant amount of effort.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 08:24 PM
I call everybody illiterate fuckbags, don't take it so personally ya prissy little jizzmop.

ill take that

Monklish
11-11-2009, 08:27 PM
I'll agree to drop it as long as my stipulation that at no point was I ever wrong in the slightest is entered into the official record. If you wish, you can stipulate some lies that make you look like you didn't get F'd in the A, but it's only fair to warn you that no one will believe you.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 08:29 PM
deal.

*edit*

oh and i stipulate that i am not illiterate, nor am i a bag of fuck. and thats all

guest-1185
11-11-2009, 08:45 PM
I'll agree to drop it as long as my stipulation that at no point was I ever wrong in the slightest is entered into the official record. If you wish, you can stipulate some lies that make you look like you didn't get F'd in the A, but it's only fair to warn you that no one will believe you.

Wow, thanks.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 08:45 PM
I think both of you want to suck the veins off each other's dicks.

and then get married.

MissingPerson
11-11-2009, 08:50 PM
We could have used all this internet for porn, you know. Or Courage Wolf.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 09:04 PM
I think both of you want to suck the veins off each other's dicks.

and then get married.

now we're getting somewhere!

guest-1185
11-11-2009, 09:52 PM
We could have used all this internet for porn, you know. Or Courage Wolf.

Space is hardly an issue on the information superhighway. But courage wolf is swell.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 10:12 PM
id be interested in seeing how much bandwith is devoted to internet memes.

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 10:29 PM
No, see you still after all this don't get what the argument is, which is why it isn't getting anywhere. It's not whether marriage as a general concept existed before religion, it's whether "marriage" as a word existed prior to its Christian meaning. Which it didn't.

Even though words evolve, and it's fucking retarded that you want to base this on semantics, you are still wrong. Marriage is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi. Circa 1790 BC, bitch.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 10:39 PM
Even though words evolve, and it's fucking retarded that you want to base this on semantics, you are still wrong. Marriage is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi. Circa 1790 BC, bitch.

he's gonna tear into you for that one. And while I don't necessarily want to agree with him, in the context he's using, hammurabi did not mention "marriage" in 1790 BC. He mentioned some other (perhaps similar) type of religious ceremony that was only recently translated as "marriage" since that's the word that fits closest today in our common English. He cedes that people did shit similar to "marrying" before christians.

BlackSwan
11-11-2009, 11:18 PM
My point is that it is a separate code of morality independent from the Christian definition of marriage. I dunno, maybe you would say that it should be called a civil partnership? Either way, the logic you are using is the same that Christians use to validate their faith. "Christians made up the word. Sorry everyone, it's theirs." No one is going anywhere near my asshole.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 11:19 PM
My point is that it is a separate code of morality, independent from the Christian definition of marriage. I dunno, maybe you would say that it should be called a civil partnership? Either way, the logic you are using is the same that Christians use to validate their faith. "Christians made up the word. Sorry everyone, it's theirs." No one is going anywhere near my asshole.


That kind of talk is only going to tempt the fate.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 11:33 PM
this point has been thoroughly exhausted and neither side agrees with the other. the sheer effort in trying to gather the facts for the true etymological origin of marriage-secular or religious- is of a scope for larger than a message board post. wayy too much research involved in this. just let it go, it feels so much better once you do haha

jackstraw94086
11-12-2009, 12:20 AM
you're wrong about how the the issue is beyond the ability of a message board to resolve. just not this one.

In the end you'll agree with me anway.

Have a donut.

stinkbutt
11-12-2009, 12:26 AM
jackstraw what is your avatar?

jackstraw94086
11-12-2009, 12:59 AM
I'll tell you after you guess.

stinkbutt
11-12-2009, 01:07 AM
something from Revenge of the Nerds?

psycobetabuckdown
11-12-2009, 11:40 AM
I don't think any Christian thinks of marriage as having started in Christianity, regardless of whether or not Randy is right about when the word was adopted into the English language. What Christians do think, however, is that Christian marriage is the only acceptable and God-approved marriage. So if gays get "married" in the court it doesn't even count. I think what Christians are afraid of, besides their sons being recruited, is gays being married in Churches, which would ruin their fucking religion. Or just make whatever Church marries them illegitimate. Someone informed me earlier that there are a few of these Churches willing to do this, and real Christians obviously don't want their religion polluted by liberals.

Gribbz
11-12-2009, 11:54 AM
something from Revenge of the Nerds?

Yeah, I always thought it was Louis.

jackstraw94086
11-12-2009, 03:52 PM
nope.
it's from a movie that was made before most people on this board were born.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081159/
but it can be watched on youtube.

mountmccabe
11-12-2009, 04:16 PM
it's from a movie that was made before most people on this board were born.


I'd bet most people on this board were born after Revenge of the Nerds was made.

amyzzz
11-12-2009, 04:18 PM
LOLZ I'VE SEEN THAT.

Monklish
11-12-2009, 04:23 PM
nope.
it's from a movie that was made before most people on this board were born.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081159/
but it can be watched on youtube.

I fucking knew it. Midnight Madness is where the infamous "hegmoos" comes from.

HEGMOOS.

GeezrRckr
12-22-2009, 12:16 PM
reposting in a more appropriate thread (thanks pbucket):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8425269.stm

this is pretty huge!

[snip]
Mexico City backs gay marriage in Latin American first

Lawmakers in Mexico City have become the first in Latin America to legalise gay marriage. City legislators passed the bill 39-20, with five abstentions. The city's mayor is now widely expected to sign the bill into law.[snip]

psycobetabuckdown
12-22-2009, 12:17 PM
Who do I talk to about officially changing my name to pbucket?

GeezrRckr
12-22-2009, 12:24 PM
Who do I talk to about officially changing my name to pbucket?

omg...sorry about that. i must have some form of dyslexia or something.....i've always read your screenname with "bucket" in it. wow, and i've been sober for the past 2 weeks too.

psycobetabuckdown
12-22-2009, 08:28 PM
No, I've heard that about 4 times. I think it's more just people not caring to read the whole thing. I seriously will change my name to pbucket just to make it easier. Or something else, I just want to change it.