Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows [Archive] - Apolyton Civilization Site Forums

chequita guevara

April 29, 2009, 20:36

Under Christianity and Judaism, yes it has, and that goes pretty far back, almost to the beginnings of recorded history.

You've discovered the tautology, under religion the concept of marriage has always been religious. :lol: The funny thin is you think you've proved something significant. Do you not wonder why no one here has any respect for you?

Perhaps there's a reason why the two have been so closely associated with the most successful societies. Do you think there's no rationale why the two are connected to one another?

Well, let's see, any religion that opposed marriage would probably go the way of the Shakers. That right there would be a pretty good indicator of why old and new religions support it. Religions support eating too, so I doubt it will be hard to find a correlation between them.

The point is, marriage can easily exist without religion and it has. Confucianism has been around longer than Christianity, and it's a philosophy, not a religion.

Of course, this all ignores my point, which is we don't know whether marriage predates religion or vice versa and that marriage can exist without religion. Now you will throw up something else irrelevant and pretend you've struck a blow. ****ing moron.

KrazyHorse

April 29, 2009, 20:37

Would you say that North America and Europe are stronger now then they were 70 years ago?

Yes. Of course.

70 years ago Europe was getting ready to tear itself apart IN ITS SECOND CIVIL WAR IN 25 YEARS.

GDP per capita in the US was ~1/8 of today (in constant dollars)

Lifespans were 20 years shorter

Progress.

:b:

Historically, Europe is the weakest now then it's been in a long, long time, since before Columbus.

Europe is stronger now than at any other point in history. Its people live longer, healthier, better-informed, more productive lives than ever before. If you're talking militarily, its current military would DESTROY the military of Europe at any previous point.

:b:

chequita guevara

April 29, 2009, 20:38

Would you say that North America and Europe are stronger now then they were 70 years ago?

I don't see it.

Historically, Europe is the weakest now then it's been in a long, long time, since before Columbus.

So, you're saying that religion leads to imperialism and the domination of other people. Finally coming around.

Wiglaf

April 29, 2009, 20:43

Wiglaf

April 29, 2009, 20:49

Stop your strange homoerotic flirtations, Wiggy. I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT RED-BLOODED HETEROSEXUAL.

Your CONSTANT PMs containing pictures of African-American men in various states of undress only arouse me SLIGHTLY.

As you live in DC I suggest you take the Metro to Northeast with a sign reminiscent of the one worn by Bruce Willis at the beginning of Die Hard III and allow the locals to take their frustrations out on your darkstar.

:angry:

This post contains so many factual errors, it may as well be written by a retard. Bruce Willis did not shoot up the projects in Die Hard III, you idiot, that was the one with the runway and the fat black cop eating donuts. :mad: Second, darkstar is meaningless even according to urban dictionary. What you meant was darksaber, because black penises are shaped like sabers. Anyone who has taken biology in college knows this, so I am not sure how you have a doctorate in pyhiscst. :mad:

KrazyHorse

April 29, 2009, 20:49

HAH.

WIGGY IS DRAKE.

GUARANTEED HE GOT THAT FROM MARGINALREVOLUTION.COM

:b:

Dis

April 29, 2009, 20:53

I'm still against them. Just make civil unions and be done with it. But I also think marriage should be exempt from the legal system and should be a religious and/or traditional ceremony only. Couples getting married should get a separate civil union agreement- the same kind that gay couples get. I know that sounds complicated, but I just don't get how marriage became some big money maker for the lawyers. I believe it should be a ceremony about love and all that crap, not about legal rights.

Ben Kenobi

April 29, 2009, 21:05

You've discovered the tautology, under religion the concept of marriage has always been religious.

Marriage as a religious concept has been seen as a part of Christianity and Judaism, back until then.

The funny thin is you think you've proved something significant. Do you not wonder why no one here has any respect for you?

Where did I say I proved something significant? It's blindingly obvious to anyone that marriage has had religious significance for thousands of years. I was challenging Che's point, who claims otherwise.

Well, let's see, any religion that opposed marriage would probably go the way of the Shakers.

Good. Now, extend that to another concept. What happens to a society that rejects marriage?

That right there would be a pretty good indicator of why old and new religions support it. Religions support eating too, so I doubt it will be hard to find a correlation between them.

So you think marriage is just as important to the survival to a society as eating?

The point is, marriage can easily exist without religion and it has.

Has it? That's my point. The current understanding of marriage in our society dates back to the Christians and the Jews, both of whom exist today.

The concept of marriage as a civil institution is very, very new. The concept of marriage as exclusively civil institution, isn't seen anywhere at all.

Societies that do not believe in religion do not believe in marriage either, and tend to fragment. I don't believe there is any reason for marriage unless you have some sort of religious understanding.

As for your non-sequitur of Confucianism isn't a religion, you might as well say that Buddhism isn't a religion either. :rolleyes: That's a no true scotsman if I ever saw one.

Of course, this all ignores my point, which is we don't know whether marriage predates religion or vice versa

Which is my point too. Recorded history shows that marriage and religion have always been around since recorded history. That is an argument suggesting very strongly that the two cannot exist without one another.

and that marriage can exist without religion.

Where's the evidence? And confucianism isn't relevant to your argument, unless you are saying that only western religions count as 'true religions'. :rolleyes:

Ben Kenobi

April 29, 2009, 21:09

So, you're saying that religion leads to imperialism and the domination of other people. Finally coming around.

Imperialism existed from 1000 to 1500? We see a doubling in the growth of Western Europe.

No, my point is that western society is in a precipitous decline from 1950 onwards, and the biggest change since then is in the growth of the liberalisation of society.

The other interesting thing is that colonial nations such as India are more productive then their neighbours who were not colonialised, simply due to their greater infrastructure.

Ben Kenobi

April 29, 2009, 21:16

70 years ago Europe was getting ready to tear itself apart IN ITS SECOND CIVIL WAR IN 25 YEARS.

Fine. Let's go back then to 1913, when Western Europe alone had 35 percent of the total global output, with north america with another 22 percent on top of it.

GDP per capita in the US was ~1/8 of today (in constant dollars)

The point is that it's gone up far higher elsewhere. Europe is lagging. They have lost what Industrialisation gave them.

If liberalisation were a success, then we should be seeing Europe maintain their dominance. Instead, we see just the opposite, a decline that has accelerated in the last 30 years, and will continue to do so.

Europe is stronger now than at any other point in history.

Compared with other nations, they are weaker then they have been in a long time. Other nations have caught up and passed them.

Its people live longer, healthier, better-informed, more productive lives than ever before. If you're talking militarily, its current military would DESTROY the military of Europe at any previous point.

True, but they wouldn't destroy anyone else, and cannot protect them anymore. The standard isn't Europe in the past, but rather, the other nations of the world. Why has Europe fallen so far behind? You can blame decolonialisation, but the decline has accelerated since 1970, and is greater from 1970-1998, then it was from 1950-1973. The decline from 1950 to 1973 is a scant 0.6 percent. From 1973 to 1998, it is a full 5 percent.

chequita guevara

April 29, 2009, 21:21

You know what, Ben, you are too stupid to continue bothering with.

Let's just take one little piece, and then I'm done with you. I did not challenge that marriage had religious significance, you half wit. I challenged the assertion that marriage has always been a religious institution. There are clearly periods in history that marriage has been secular, i.e., not part of a religious institution. Marriage may always have been part of religion (and that's questionable), but religion hasn't always been part of marriage.

KrazyHorse

April 29, 2009, 21:34

The point is that it's gone up far higher elsewhere. Europe is lagging. They have lost what Industrialisation gave them.

a) Don't capitalize non-proper nouns. It makes you look even more retarded than you are

b) Per-capita GDP growth in Europe in the second half of the 20th century has been FASTER than growth AT ANY OTHER TIME in Europe. The rest of the world got to free-ride off of Western technical, economic, social and political knowledge. Duh. NO country gets 10% growth per year, year after year like China's been getting without aid like this. GREAT. I'm ALL in favour of EVERYBODY being rich. Unlike you, I'm not so horrible a person as to wish that other people languish in poverty so that I'm richer in comparison. You are a TERRIBLE person. :q:

If liberalisation were a success, then we should be seeing Europe maintain their dominance.

The fact that you've actually made this assertion is all ANY random observer of this conversation would need to diagnose you as either terminally stupid or pathologically disingenuous. :b:

Instead, we see just the opposite, a decline that has accelerated in the last 30 years, and will continue to do so.

Nope. What we've seen is a Europe (and NA) that continue to grow at a pace unmatched in human history except for underdeveloped nations which leverage the knowledge and capital of more developed nations to lift themselves up.

Compared with other nations, they are weaker then they have been in a long time. Other nations have caught up and passed them.

See above. How retarded can you get? Do you really expect that a continent occupying perhaps 5-10% of the arable land on the planet would continue to reign supreme? How the **** would THAT happen unless Europe deliberately stomped on less developed nations before they had a chance to emulate the European example?

:lol:

True, but they wouldn't destroy anyone else

:lol:

Europe as a region has a more proficient military than ANYBODY other than the US currently. They would stomp the **** out of any other individual country.

:lol:

KrazyHorse

April 29, 2009, 21:43

Everybody being rich :b:
Everybody being free :b:
Everybody laughing at Ben :b: :b:

KrazyHorse

April 29, 2009, 21:46

By the way, the phenomenal growth of China and India only started in the last 30 years or so (even more recently for India). Before that, they were pretty much stagnant.

Meanwhile, Europe and NA have been happily chugging along at a reasonably quick pace of growth since the end of WWII (again, higher than EVER before)

What the **** makes you think that something changed in the West rather than something changing in the East?

:lol:

Oerdin

April 29, 2009, 21:49

honestly, i think anything the government has its hands in should be a civil union. marraige has always been a religious institution. besides, who gives a **** what you call your relationship?

Separate but equal? I suppose you could call everything civil unions as you suggest but I believe the term marriage is to entrenched in society to change it now.

KrazyHorse

April 29, 2009, 21:50

Oerdin, he's saying that BOTH hetero and homo couples would get civil unions. If they also wanted to "marry" in a church that's between them and whatever church they choose.

Patroklos

April 29, 2009, 21:53

I can't quite figure out why Che thinks he is in a position to mock anyone on this site. It is very interesting to watch.

Patroklos

April 29, 2009, 21:55

Separate but equal? I suppose you could call everything civil unions as you suggest but I believe the term marriage is to entrenched in society to change it now.

I think this would be the best way to go about it, as like it or not despite secular marriage it has far more entrenched religious overtones than some here want to believe.

However, the second you tell fundemetalists of any religion their marriage is not legal, I bet they will be far more pissed off about that than having homosexuals married. The simple answer is to just let gays get married and call it just that.

Ming

April 29, 2009, 22:20

Oerdin

April 29, 2009, 23:01

Oerdin, he's saying that BOTH hetero and homo couples would get civil unions. If they also wanted to "marry" in a church that's between them and whatever church they choose.

Which would be why I said:

I suppose you could call everything civil unions as you suggest but I believe the term marriage is to entrenched in society to change it now.

:)

Imran Siddiqui

April 29, 2009, 23:26

Progress :b:

KrazyHorse

April 29, 2009, 23:39

Which would be why I said:

:)

So in what sense is this "separate but equal"?

onodera

April 29, 2009, 23:40

Well lets see.

Innovation by the west that historically has disastrous outcomes, or

Orthodox Christianity, which has survived now for 2000 years?

Yeah, I'm going to put my money on Orthodox Christianity there.
Don't touch Orthodox Christianity with your heretical Catholic fingers, Ben. Also, care to name any other Western innovations that had disastrous outcomes?

Nugog

April 29, 2009, 23:44

Separate but equal? I suppose you could call everything civil unions as you suggest but I believe the term marriage is to entrenched in society to change it now.

NZ has civil unions.

While the law was passed to allow "gay marriage", last time I saw stats released more hetero couples had used it, as it provides the same legal protections/benefits of marriage, without the religious overtones.

MrFun

April 29, 2009, 23:45

If some religions don't want to accept gay marriages... fine. That's their right I guess, and they don't have to perform them. But it isn't their right to cram their beliefs down the throats of others. Nobody is telling religions that they have to marry gay people, so religions shouldn't be telling other people that they can't get married.

Gays deserve the same rights as everybody else. It's that simple.

In fact, in the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling earlier this month, the judges wrote exactly this - that extending equal rights protection to a vulnerable minority group will not deny others their freedom of religion.

This is where BK will bring back claims of how in Canada, churches are being forced to marry gay couples even though Asher and others have already refuted those lies ad nauseum. :)

rah

April 30, 2009, 09:14

Justices of the peace and Ship captains have been performing marriages for centuries without any religious overtone at all, so Ben's comment that

The concept of marriage as a civil institution is very, very new. The concept of marriage as exclusively civil institution, isn't seen anywhere at all.

is just ludicrous.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 09:16

That's true. My parents were married by a justice of the peace.

MrFun

April 30, 2009, 09:19

I want to see BK try to wrap his mind around that, KH. Secular marriage? THE HORROR!!

Arrian

April 30, 2009, 09:22

I was married by a justice of the peace.

I've long thought that the obvious solution here was to give everyone Civil Unions, and allow the religious folks keep the term "marriage" which would have no LEGAL meaning. Thus, my "marriage" would become a civil union. In order for it to be marriage, I'd have to go to a church, etc. Which I wouldn't, and I'd be fine with that.

But no matter. That's really just semantics.

-Arrian

Asher

April 30, 2009, 09:24

I agree with Arrian.

Docfeelgood

April 30, 2009, 09:24

"All men are created equal."
Which sexual preference does this apply?
If these words are not true then the whole Constitution cannot be taken serious.

Tuberski

April 30, 2009, 09:37

<cite class="vcard"> By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer David Crary, Ap National Writer </cite> – <abbr title="2009-04-30T03:30:11-0700" class="timedate">Thu Apr 30, 6:30 am ET</abbr>
 A majority of Americans oppose gay marriage but support civil unions for same-sex couples and favor repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.
Quinnipiac's polling institute, which surveyed 2,041 registered voters nationwide, said it was one of most comprehensive polls ever on attitudes toward a variety of gay-rights questions.
"Americans have nuanced and at times inconsistent views" on these issues, said the institute's assistant director, Peter Brown.
Among the key findings:
_By 56-37 percent, voters said the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military should be repealed. Among voters with family in the military, the margin was 50-43 percent for repeal. Almost two-thirds of Catholic respondents supported repeal, but white evangelical Christians supported the current ban, 53-40 percent.
_By 55-38 percent, voters said they did not want their state to allow same-sex couples to marry. However, by 57-38 percent, they favored allowing such couples to form civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights and by 53-40 percent they supported allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.
_By 50-44 percent, survey respondents rejected the argument that ending discrimination against gays and lesbians is as necessary today as ending discrimination against blacks was in the 1960s.
_Also by 50-44 percent, voters supported the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
_Asked if society is paying too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 49 percent of voters said yes, while 21 percent said there's too little attention and 22 percent said it's "about right."
Four percent of respondents said they are gay or bisexual, while 63 percent said they have close friends or family members who are gay. Among those with a gay friend or relative, half supported same-sex marriage, while those without a gay friend or relative were opposed by 70-25 percent.
Earlier this month, Iowa and Vermont became the third and fourth states legalizing same-sex marriage, and bills proposing that step are pending in several other states.
The ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military remains in place. President Barack Obama has said he favors repealing it, but has indicated there could be lengthy consultations with military leaders before any action is taken.
The Quinnipiac poll was conducted from April 21-27. Its margin of error was 2.2 percentage points.

:p ACK!

Ming

April 30, 2009, 09:42

But no matter. That's really just semantics.
-Arrian

While that may be the case... Religion has NEVER had a monopoly on marriages. Maybe religions should adopt some new term... like Religious union... and leave the term marriage to others. Now, they would be the first people to scream if this was asked of them... ;)

I frankly don't see why the term marriage can't be used across the board for EVERYBODY!
But of course, I'm sure somebody will come along and try to say that if gays can be "married", it cheapens the marriages of non gays... and to that I continue to say, if something like that "cheapens your marriage" it was probably cheap to begin with. Why should a couple in love feel any more or less in love just because of somebody elses marriage ;)

Arrian

April 30, 2009, 09:45

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 09:50

Perhaps there's a reason why the two have been so closely associated with the most successful societies. Do you think there's no rationale why the two are connected to one another?

Iran's quite successful, with its marriage of religion and state.

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 09:51

The other interesting thing is that colonial nations such as India are more productive then their neighbours who were not colonialised, simply due to their greater infrastructure.

Ah, yes. In defense of colonialism. It was a horrific burden, shouldered by the white man.

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 09:52

Don't touch Orthodox Christianity with your heretical Catholic fingers, Ben. Also, care to name any other Western innovations that had disastrous outcomes?

*raises hand* Theocratic states?

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 09:54

"All men are created equal."
Which sexual preference does this apply?
If these words are not true then the whole Constitution cannot be taken serious.

Well, it doesn't speak to preference. But since we're a Christian nation, and the Bible says that women aren't equal to men, clearly it just means that men are all equal, and should be able to marry anyone they want.

Opposite marriage would have one equal person and one less equal person.
Same-sex marriage would really be a marriage of equals.

Docfeelgood

April 30, 2009, 09:59

Well, it doesn't speak to preference. But since we're a Christian nation, and the Bible says that women aren't equal to men, clearly it just means that men are all equal, and should be able to marry anyone they want.

Opposite marriage would have one equal person and one less equal person.
Same-sex marriage would really be a marriage of equals.

You worded that very good. :b:

Ming

April 30, 2009, 10:11

I don't see why it can't be either, Ming. I was merely explaining that I personally was ok with ceding the term "marriage" to the religious folks. I don't have any real attachment to that word.
-Arrian

I totally understand what you are saying.

But I'm not ok with ceding them the term. What right do they have to it... the answer is NONE!
If they don't like it, they should be the ones to adopt some new phrase (I kind of like religious union, that would stick in their throats)... not everybody else.
Again, I respect their right to not have to perform marriages they don't agree with. But I'm against their desire to cram their beliefs down other people's throat.

onodera

April 30, 2009, 11:07

*raises hand* Theocratic states?
I do not think ancient Sumeria was located in Europe.

self biased

April 30, 2009, 11:11

You worded that very good. :b:

i see what you did there.

so if it's largely a question of semantics, what's the big deal?

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 11:29

I do not think ancient Sumeria was located in Europe.

The Vatican. Or, by some arguments, many of the kingdoms after the fall of Rome and before the rise of the Enlightenment.

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 11:31

i see what you did there.

so if it's largely a question of semantics, what's the big deal?

Well, it'll lead to society falling apart, if we allow gays to marry. I mean really, gay men having stable, long-term relationships? What's next, a black president?

This country will turn into a socialist fascist nightmare!

MOBIUS

April 30, 2009, 15:13

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4972643.shtml

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/04/27/image4971567.gif

Forty-two percent of Americans now say same sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. That's up nine points from last month, when 33 percent supported legalizing same sex marriage.

Support for same sex marriage is now at its highest point since CBS News starting asking about it in 2004.

Twenty-eight percent say same sex couples should have no legal recognition – down from 35 percent in March – while 25 percent support civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples.

As has historically been the case on this issue, liberals are more likely to support same sex marriage. Sixty-nine percent support the idea, while conservatives generally favor either civil unions (28 percent) or no legal recognition (44 percent).

So, as we already know: Liberals are intelligent people open to change, and - as per their name suggests - Conservatives are the opposite...

MOBIUS

April 30, 2009, 15:16

I totally understand what you are saying.

But I'm not ok with ceding them the term. What right do they have to it... the answer is NONE!
If they don't like it, they should be the ones to adopt some new phrase (I kind of like religious union, that would stick in their throats)... not everybody else.
Again, I respect their right to not have to perform marriages they don't agree with. But I'm against their desire to cram their beliefs down other people's throat.

:eek:

Is Ming admitting he's an Atheist - and therefore deserving far more respect than I've ever given him before...!?

Imran Siddiqui

April 30, 2009, 16:15

LOLz

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/for_gay_couple_fulfilling?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

NEW YORK—Having their sworn commitment to each other and all related rights therein recognized by the highest court of a sovereign U.S. state is ultimately not worth the hassle of moving to Iowa, longtime partners Danny Mindlin and Alex Small determined Monday. "Alex and I want to grow old together, but we'd have to drive six hours just to get a mezzaluna at Restoration Hardware," said Mindlin, who claimed he "couldn't survive" without a strawberry frosted cupcake from Amy's Bread after yoga every Thursday. "And where would we summer? Dubuque? I think we'll just buy a townhouse and live in an unrecognized union with beautiful granite countertops instead." The couple told reporters that their plans to adopt also weighed heavily in the decision, since they want to raise a child who is healthy, balanced, and "not tacky."

MrFun FTL!

EPW

April 30, 2009, 17:06

mellifluous

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 17:16

I challenged the assertion that marriage has always been a religious institution.

It has been a religious institution, at least in Christianity and Judaism for over 4000 years.

There are clearly periods in history that marriage has been secular, i.e., not part of a religious institution.

Which periods are you talking about, and where? In some way shape or form, it has been religious at least for 4000 years.

Marriage may always have been part of religion (and that's questionable), but religion hasn't always been part of marriage.

Well I'd like you to clarify which societies you are speaking about.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 17:30

a) Don't capitalize non-proper nouns. It makes you look even more retarded than you are

So the physics major finds the time to criticise punctuation over making substantive arguments.

b) Per-capita GDP growth in Europe in the second half of the 20th century has been FASTER than growth AT ANY OTHER TIME in Europe.

Yes, but their overall productivity has lagged. This is a function of GDP per capita multiplied by the population. Population growth has been nil for 30 years.

The rest of the world got to free-ride off of Western technical, economic, social and political knowledge.

So why doesn't the west continue on with innovation? We've stagnated.

NO country gets 10% growth per year, year after year like China's been getting without aid like this. GREAT. I'm ALL in favour of EVERYBODY being rich. Unlike you, I'm not so horrible a person as to wish that other people languish in poverty so that I'm richer in comparison.

:lol:

I wouldn't have taken you for a communist. If everyone is rich, then everyone is poor.

Far as I'm concerned, if Western Europe believes that social liberalism is their saviour, I'd rather throw my lot in with the other folks. I'd prefer that Western Europe continue to be the vanguard of technological progress, but if they hate themselves so much that they don't want that burden, then by all means.

Secondly, look at the GDP growth in the rest of the world. Just because America is the richest nation, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world cannot also be rich too. Economics is not a zero sum game.

The fact that you've actually made this assertion is all ANY random observer of this conversation would need to diagnose you as either terminally stupid or pathologically disingenuous.

Perhaps you might want to rebut the statement rather then handwaving.

Nope. What we've seen is a Europe (and NA) that continue to grow at a pace unmatched in human history except for underdeveloped nations which leverage the knowledge and capital of more developed nations to lift themselves up.

So you don't see it as a concern, that Western Europe is declining?

See above. How retarded can you get? Do you really expect that a continent occupying perhaps 5-10% of the arable land on the planet would continue to reign supreme?

That is the legacy which had been left to us by our great-grandparents.

How the **** would THAT happen unless Europe deliberately stomped on less developed nations before they had a chance to emulate the European example?

Hard work and effort. Was the entire industrial revolution due to the exploitation of other people? I think Europe had some unique advantages wrt to innovation, that they have ceded, and stagnated.

Europe as a region has a more proficient military than ANYBODY other than the US currently. They would stomp the **** out of any other individual country.

Better then Japan, China and India? I don't think so.

They can't even manage against the Afghans.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 17:34

What the **** makes you think that something changed in the West rather than something changing in the East?

From 1950 to 1973, Europe kept pace.

From 1973 onwards, Europe has steadily declined. I think there have been significant demographic changes that occurred after 1973 which are primarily responsible for the decline in relative output of Western Europe. Output is a function of both population and productivity.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 17:39

Don't touch Orthodox Christianity with your heretical Catholic fingers, Ben.

Small o, which is my bad. :)

Also, care to name any other Western innovations that had disastrous outcomes?

This current fascination with environmentalism is a train wreck in motion. No-fault divorce is another. Abortion is another. Marxism has been a splendidly successful doctrine in every nation that has adopted it. Gay marriage is just one of a long chain of social liberal experiments which have greatly weakened western civilization.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 17:44

But I'm not ok with ceding them the term. What right do they have to it... the answer is NONE!

What right does civil marriage have to use the term marriage? Did they coin the term?

If they don't like it, they should be the ones to adopt some new phrase (I kind of like religious union, that would stick in their throats)... not everybody else.

What are your thoughts about holy matrimony, which is the real name for the sacrament.

But I'm against their desire to cram their beliefs down other people's throat.

That's ok. Religious people shouldn't cram their beliefs about love down other people's throat either. Especially loving your neighbour. :)

It's been my experience that those that complain loudest about Christians, are the first to ask them to do things. It's ok if you have soup kitchens, heaven forbid you should actually preach the bible too.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 17:46

In defense of colonialism. It was a horrific burden, shouldered by the white man.

True. Is democracy an eastern invention? :)

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 17:50

But since we're a Christian nation, and the Bible says that women aren't equal to men, clearly it just means that men are all equal, and should be able to marry anyone they want.

Where does the bible say this? The bible says that each woman should have her own husband and each husband his own wife.

Opposite marriage would have one equal person and one less equal person.
Same-sex marriage would really be a marriage of equals.

:lol:

Shades of Harrison Bergeron. What's next, making everyone wear goggles that make them blind? Equality doesn't mean sameness. You can be equal in value and complementary in abilities. If you insist that everyone has to function in the exact same way in order to be truly equal, that is a horrifying philosophy.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 17:51

Yes, but their overall productivity has lagged. This is a function of GDP per capita multiplied by the population. Population growth has been nil for 30 years.

a) Productivity is a measure of production intensity. Please use the right words. They're defined quite specifically for a reason

b) Raising children is an expensive proposition in a modern society. They must be educated and cared for often into their early 20s. No **** the population leveled off. And it will in the rest of the world too (it already is, by the way; fertility rates are DOWN across the board in the last couple of decades). The initial population spurt comes when clean water and adequate food start reaching most people for the first time in history. Same as happened in Europe in the 18th-19th century.

So why doesn't the west continue on with innovation? We've stagnated.

:lol:

No, we've INCREASED the pace of innovation. We're growing FASTER than ever before. But it's quicker and cheaper to use OTHER people's ideas than it is to come up with new ones. As China, India et al catch up to us their growth will slow. Why the **** do you think Japan and SK's growth has slowed? They caught up. No cheap innovations left. We're all working at the same level now.

I wouldn't have taken you for a communist. If everyone is rich, then everyone is poor.

This is possibly the most DESPICABLE thing I've ever heard you say.

Wealth is not SOLELY a positional good. In fact those who value wealth mostly for its positional value are repugnant to me. You're a repellant human being and possibly the worst Christian I've ever had the misfortune to talk to.

:q:

The Chinese were starving by the tens of millions only 40 years ago. You're going to tell me that I should wish they had continued to do so because then I'd feel better about my lot in life?

I literally hate you.

Secondly, look at the GDP growth in the rest of the world. Just because America is the richest nation, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world cannot also be rich too. Economics is not a zero sum game.

And now I think you're simply retarded. What the **** do these two statements mean in conjunction with each other? Anybody?

Perhaps you might want to rebut the statement rather then handwaving.

:lol:

So you don't see it as a concern, that Western Europe is declining?

God thing that's not happening. Tard.

That is the legacy which had been left to us by our great-grandparents.

No, the legacy left to us was to be rich. Which we are. Other people have also used the ideas of our great grandparents, and grandparents and parents to better their own lot in life. Unlike you, I'm happy when other people do well.

Ideas are at their best when shared with all.

Hard work and effort. Was the entire industrial revolution due to the exploitation of other people? I think Europe had some unique advantages wrt to innovation, that they have ceded, and stagnated.

Hard work and effort? What the **** have I been saying to you? EUROPE HAS GROWN FASTER IN THIS CENTURY THAN IN THE PREVIOUS ONE, OR IN THE ONE BEFORE THAT. You are seriously ****ing retarded. You've now demonstrated that you have as little grasp of history as you do of general relativity. :b:

Better then Japan, China and India? I don't think so.

Japan, China and India? Three regional rivals?

:lol:

Europe is at peace and has been so for more than half a century. Its people are richer now than at any previous time in history. The same is true for North America. The rate of improvement of human welfare in these regions is FASTER than ever before. Now some of the other regions in the world have latched onto ideas that at their heart were born in Europe and have lifted themselves out of poverty. :b:

And in the future they will (and already are, in the case of some of the more developed areas) contribute their own ideas and make us all better off.

:b:

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 17:52

from 1950 to 1973, europe kept pace.

from 1950 to 1973 europe was rebuilding from wwii you ****ing tard

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 17:53

That period is a PERFECT example of unsustainable growth caused by ideas and capital flowing in to a region with low starting capital.

:lol:

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 18:15

a) Productivity is a measure of production intensity. Please use the right words. They're defined quite specifically for a reason

Fine, gross output then. I was going to change that but wanted to reply to the other posts first.

b) Raising children is an expensive proposition in a modern society.

Society has a vested interest in lowering the cost if it wishes to survive.

And it will in the rest of the world too (it already is, by the way; fertility rates are DOWN across the board in the last couple of decades).

To a certain extent yes. All that will mean is that the same problems afflicting Europe will simply be worldwide, which is a not very appealing notion.

The initial population spurt comes when clean water and adequate food start reaching most people for the first time in history. Same as happened in Europe in the 18th-19th century.

Have you done any research in this? Worldwide fertility rates are already at about 2.4, which is a rate not see in the western world until the 1970s, again coinciding with those demographic changes I was talking about. True, the rest of the world is slightly higher, but not by that much, even if you exclude western europe.

No, we've INCREASED the pace of innovation.

The world of the 60's saw fit to launch an exploration of the moon, something which we've not replicated since. Where's all the space exploration we were supposed to have by now?

We're growing FASTER than ever before.

From 1900 sure, but not since the 1970s.

Why the **** do you think Japan and SK's growth has slowed?

Slowed, sure, but the west has declined.

Wealth is not SOLELY a positional good.

Where did I say it was? If everyone is equally rich, then everyone is equally poor. It is an economic fact.

In fact those who value wealth mostly for its positional value are repugnant to me.

I honestly don't give a fig about wealth, truth be told. But I don't believe that society would be better off if everyone were equally rich, and equally poor.

You're a repellant human being and possibly the worst Christian I've ever had the misfortune to talk to.

A compliment coming from a communist who believes in wealth redistribution. I'd be concerned if you liked me.

The Chinese were starving by the tens of millions only 40 years ago. You're going to tell me that I should wish they had continued to do so because then I'd feel better about my lot in life

No. You, again are assuming that economics is a zero sum game. I don't see why the folks in China could not have the same standard of living they do now, while Europe maintained the same rate of growth they have had for centuries. That I see preferable to Europe stagnating.

God thing that's not happening. Tard.

You need to read more Steyn. It is, and it was remarked way back in the early 20th century. It's not a new thesis.

No, the legacy left to us was to be rich. Which we are. Other people have also used the ideas of our great grandparents, and grandparents and parents to better their own lot in life. Unlike you, I'm happy when other people do well.

So am I. Why does that mean we should rest on our laurels?

Say you have person A and person B.

According to you, person A is rich, and person B is poor.

You would rather see Person A as making no money, while person B 'catches up'.

I would rather see Person A and person B both making more money.

End result, person B has the same amount of money. Person A has more money and therefore there is more wealth created in my scenario then in yours.

You are accusing me of saying that I want Person A and Person B to not make any money at all, which is wrong.

Ideas are at their best when shared with all.

Great, I have no problem with that. Why rest on your laurels.

Hard work and effort? What the **** have I been saying to you? EUROPE HAS GROWN FASTER IN THIS CENTURY THAN IN THE PREVIOUS ONE, OR IN THE ONE BEFORE THAT.

On an absolute basis, yes.

That's like saying you'd rather take 5 percent growth over 10 percent growth because you'd make more off the 5 now that you have more then you had previously.

Japan, China and India? Three regional rivals?

You seriously believe that your 'united states of europe' wet dream even has the resources to combat Russia?

When was the last time the united states of europe engaged successfully on the battlefield?

Europe is at peace and has been so for more than half a century. Its people are richer now than at any previous time in history.

Great.

The same is true for North America. The rate of improvement of human welfare in these regions is FASTER than ever before. Now some of the other regions in the world have latched onto ideas that at their heart were born in Europe and have lifted themselves out of poverty.

Great, so that means it's time to come up with new and better ideas. :)

And in the future they will (and already are, in the case of some of the more developed areas) contribute their own ideas and make us all better off.

While we do what? Sit and do nothing?

Going to be an interesting century, that's for sure. With this kind of attitude?

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 18:16

Where does the bible say this? The bible says that each woman should have her own husband and each husband his own wife.
It also says that wives should be obedient, but doesn't suggest that husbands should necessarily be. :b:

But face it, women really are inferior. After all, if they weren't, then our Christian Founding Fathers, wise as they were, would have given them the vote.

Equality doesn't mean sameness. You can be equal in value and complementary in abilities. If you insist that everyone has to function in the exact same way in order to be truly equal, that is a horrifying philosophy.
Nice strawman. No, really. It's like you took my satirical argument at face value, and then ran with it.

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 18:19

Slowed, sure, but the west has declined.
Are we talking about population growth rates?

Because if we are, Japan and South Korea are actually growing slower than the bulk of Western and Central Europe.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 18:22

It also says that wives should be obedient, but doesn't suggest that husbands should necessarily be.

It says that husbands should love their wives and die for them, but it doesn't say that wives should do the same.

But face it, women really are inferior. After all, if they weren't, then our Christian Founding Fathers, wise as they were, would have given them the vote.

Like they did in 18th century China?

They also didn't give the vote to black people either. Is that because the bible said that black people were inferior to white people? Same with poor white people. Does the bible say that the franchise should be given to the rich only.

Better yet, what does the bible say about one man, one vote?

Nice strawman. No, really. It's like you took my satirical argument at face value, and then ran with it.

I'm having fun. How about you?

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 18:22

I see what you're talking about, it's the growth of innovation.

Actually, no, KH is more correct on SKorea and Japan's economic growth. It's slower now, because incremental growth is now more expensive.

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 18:26

It says that husbands should love their wives and die for them, but it doesn't say that wives should do the same.
Well, yes. Because a woman's life is worth less, and so the sacrifice is meaningless.

Like they did in 18th century China?
What does China have to do with this? Besides, they're un-American, and those fag-lovers* already discussing some form of gay marriage.

They also didn't give the vote to black people either. Is that because the bible said that black people were inferior to white people? Same with poor white people. Does the bible say that the franchise should be given to the rich only.
Well, I'm not making judgements on the Christian Founding Fathers who set up the system.

Since really, we're a Christian nation. And I'm not without sin, so I can't cast the first stone.

Better yet, what does the bible say about one man, one vote?
If it was good enough for our smart Founding Fathers, it's good enough for us today.

I'm having fun. How about you?
I'm having fun because I'm not actually arguing. I'm making **** up that sounds ridiculous.

Y'know, the Colbert thing.

*Of course, by this I only mean that China has one of the higher rates of cigarette smoking in the world.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:26

Society has a vested interest in lowering the cost if it wishes to survive.

Why? Fertility rates are a bit below replacement levels in most industrialized countries, but not particularly far below. At current rates, with no immigration the industrialized world's population would drop by ~1/2 over the course of a century or so. And there is every evidence that outside the US the industrialized world's birthrate is slowly increasing from its former lows. Currently the only places in the world with what I would consider to be crisis birthrates are former Eastern Bloc nations, Japan and SK.

Mediterranean countries come next, while Northwestern Europe is actually not far from replacement rates at all.

Your sad obsession with having white people form a larger percentage of the world's population is ridiculous. :q:

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 18:26

Are we talking about population growth rates?

Output, population x GDP/capita.

Because if we are, Japan and South Korea are actually growing slower than the bulk of Western and Central Europe.

Not when you take GDP into consideration.

Actually to be fair, Eastern Europe and the former USSR have done even worse. They used to have 10 percent of the total world output in 1950, and are now down to around 2 percent, which is actually lower then they were before the industrial age.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 18:32

Why? Fertility rates are a bit below replacement levels in most industrialized countries, but not particularly far below.

Have you looked at them recently? We are seeing numbers lower then 1.5

That's very, very much lower then replacement.

At current rates, with no immigration the industrialized world's population would drop by ~1/2 over the course of a century or so. And there is every evidence that outside the US the industrialized world's birthrate is slowly increasing from its former lows. Currently the only places in the world with what I would consider to be crisis birthrates are former Eastern Bloc nations.

Your sad obsession with having white people form a larger percentage of the world's population is ridiculous.

I don't see why crisis birthrates are any less a problem for Japan and China.

My opposition is to liberalism, wherever it cripples societies. That other nations are swallowing western medicine is going to be apparent with the social upheaval we have coming up.

I could just have easily used eastern europe or russia, but I wanted to hit a bit closer home.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:35

Have you done any research in this? Worldwide fertility rates are already at about 2.4, which is a rate not see in the western world until the 1970s, again coinciding with those demographic changes I was talking about. True, the rest of the world is slightly higher, but not by that much, even if you exclude western europe.

The rest of the world is slowly dropping down to reasonable fertility levels. That's a good thing. There was a demographic EXPLOSION in much of the undeveloped world when modern medicine and hygiene hit them for the first time. And UNLIKE the developed world their economies were NOT able to deal with it because THEIR economies were set up on the lines of labor-intensive agriculture. And they had only so much land. Which is PART of the reason Africa regressed for much of the 20th century. They're only now starting to grow. :b:

Slowed, sure, but the west has declined.

Errr. No. You retard. The growth of the West continues. :b:

And in fact, the growth of the West has been higher for a while than the growth of Japan. Unsure as to SK (Note that SK is still somewhat behind Western Europe and significantly behind the US, while Japan is at the level of Western Europe)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:37

To a certain extent yes. All that will mean is that the same problems afflicting Europe will simply be worldwide, which is a not very appealing notion.

The rest of the world (outside NA, Japan, SK and a select few others) should be so LUCKY as to have Europe's problems.

:lol:

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:39

The world of the 60's saw fit to launch an exploration of the moon, something which we've not replicated since. Where's all the space exploration we were supposed to have by now?

Is this supposed to pass as an argument? We haven't been dropping tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars into something as wasteful as trotting a dozen people around on the moon?

:lol:

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:44

Have you looked at them recently? We are seeing numbers lower then 1.5

Can you read and perform exponential decay calculations? You gimp.

First off, Northwestern Europe has fertility rates ranging from 1.7-1.9 or so.

Mediterranean Europe and former Eastern Bloc countries are the only places where they're below that in Europe.

And outside Japan and SK industrialized countries have had INCREASING fertility rates recently.

GOD, you're retarded.

I ALREADY WROTE ALL THIS. You GIMP.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:45

No. You, again are assuming that economics is a zero sum game. I don't see why the folks in China could not have the same standard of living they do now, while Europe maintained the same rate of growth they have had for centuries. That I see preferable to Europe stagnating.

You ****ING RETARD.

Europe has INCREASED its citizens' welfare FASTER in the last century than EVER BEFORE.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:46

How many times do I have to tell you that before it sinks into the piece of detritus that passes for your brain?

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 18:48

Can you read and perform exponential decay calculations?

Easily.

First off, Northwestern Europe has fertility rates ranging from 1.7-1.9 or so.

If you exclude Germany and include Norway in 'Northwestern Europe'.

Mediterranean Europe

Portugal, Spain and Italy are Western Europe, are they not?

And outside Japan and SK industrialized countries have had INCREASING fertility rates recently.

France, is about the only one.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:48

I don't see why crisis birthrates are any less a problem for Japan and China.

Why the **** would you aggregate Japan and China? They're in two wholly different categories.

Despite China's growth it's STILL not close to fully industrialized.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 18:50

Is this supposed to pass as an argument? We haven't been dropping tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars into something as wasteful as trotting a dozen people around on the moon?

Thank you KH. I was hoping you'd say that.

For someone who supposedly supports innovation, you sure don't seem to believe in it. Seems to me, you want to make sure everyone is caught up before you take the next step forward.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:51

On an absolute basis, yes.

That's like saying you'd rather take 5 percent growth over 10 percent growth because you'd make more off the 5 now that you have more then you had previously.

I have NO IDEA what this is even supposed to mean.

The average person in Europe is getting richer at a faster pace, measured as a percent than ANY of his forebears ever did.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 18:52

Despite China's growth it's STILL not close to fully industrialized.

Western style birthrates without western style wealth is a bad combination. Worst of both worlds. Good on us for exporting western-style Marxism for the Chinese people, eh?

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:52

Thank you KH. I was hoping you'd say that.

For someone who supposedly supports innovation, you sure don't seem to believe in it. Seems to me, you want to make sure everyone is caught up before you take the next step forward.

I don't believe in massive government welfare programs for scientists and engineers, no. :q:

Innovations should be made because they PAY OFF. I thought you were a believer in private enterprise. :lol:

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:54

Thank you KH. I was hoping you'd say that.

For someone who supposedly supports innovation, you sure don't seem to believe in it. Seems to me, you want to make sure everyone is caught up before you take the next step forward.

No, I want to continue growing at a faster pace than ever before. :b:

I also want other people to undergo supernormal growth rates as they come on board the industrialization/development train.

And both of these things are happening.

:b:

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:56

So am I. Why does that mean we should rest on our laurels?

Who's resting? We're INCREASING OUR WEALTH FASTER THAN OUR GRANDPARENTS DID.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 18:58

Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that we have INCREASED the pace of growth of human welfare in the West (including in Western Europe)?

The industrialized world is NOT stagnating. It is continuing to develop and build FASTER THAN EVER BEFORE.

:b:

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 18:58

The rest of the world is slowly dropping down to reasonable fertility levels.

"Reasonable fertility" is below replacement? And you are accusing me of being racist?

There was a demographic EXPLOSION in much of the undeveloped world when modern medicine and hygiene hit them for the first time.

Just like it did in the West during the industrial period. Population growth is a good thing. Western style liberalism which chokes off their future is a bad thing.

And UNLIKE the developed world their economies were NOT able to deal with it because THEIR economies were set up on the lines of labor-intensive agriculture.

Just as it was for the west prior to industrialisation. You cannot industrialise without significant concentration of people.

And they had only so much land. Which is PART of the reason Africa regressed for much of the 20th century. They're only now starting to grow.

Just the opposite. Africa has the lowest urbanisation, has the lowest population densities, outside of perhaps Egypt, in the world.

I think it's great that they have drastically improved standard of living. I think it's bad that the west has done nothing in 30 years.

And in fact, the growth of the West has been higher for a while than the growth of Japan.

For output, not quite. Output was still increasing in Japan at a faster rate, even as the population has levelled and started declining.

Q Classic

April 30, 2009, 18:58

Western style birthrates without western style wealth is a bad combination. Worst of both worlds. Good on us for exporting western-style Marxism for the Chinese people, eh?

Well, actually, it's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics".

Jon Miller

April 30, 2009, 19:01

I like my intellectual masturbation and will note that since 75% of physicists end up going into industry that it still produces value unlike philosophy/etc intellectual masturbation.

JM

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:01

Ben, I swear that you are literally the MOST intellectually dishonest person I've ever had the misfortune to communicate with. You post ridiculous rants based on false premises, and when called on these falsehoods you refuse to acknowledge them.

:lol:

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:03

"Reasonable fertility" is below replacement? And you are accusing me of being racist?

No, reasonable fertility rates are those which do NOT put undue strains on the natural resources you need to support them given your current level of development. And these have been exceeded by many countries in the past century.

:rolleyes:

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 19:04

The industrialized world is NOT stagnating. It is continuing to develop and build FASTER THAN EVER BEFORE.

I'm concerned about some worrying trends. So far we've been ok for the last 40 years, but right now there are some very large and very important countries which are declining in population even after taking immigration into account, and more on the way.

Nearly half the nations of the world are currently not replacing themselves.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 19:10

No, reasonable fertility rates are those which do NOT put undue strains on the natural resources you need to support them given your current level of development. And these have been exceeded by many countries in the past century.

Below or above replacement?

Seems to me your sweet spot is about 1.6 to 2, which is below replacement.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:11

Just like it did in the West during the industrial period. Population growth is a good thing. Western style liberalism which chokes off their future is a bad thing.

Actually, NO.

Because UNLIKE the West, the benefits of modern medicine, hygiene etc. hit these countries MUCH FASTER because they were coming from OUTSIDE. And they hit people whose social and legal organization weren't even up to Europe's standards during industrialization. And through much of the undeveloped world, this DEMOLISHED human welfare, as subsistence agriculture became less productive and there was insufficient political stability to allow outside investment to flow in.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:15

I'm concerned about some worrying trends. So far we've been ok for the last 40 years, but right now there are some very large and very important countries which are declining in population even after taking immigration into account, and more on the way.

The ones I can think of are Russia, Japan and China.

Russia's in a basketcase league of its own. China has the one child policy which, given the level of development they currently have, will almost certainly increase human welfare for the next generation, though the method used to achieve it is repugnant. Japan could probably live with a much higher birthrate.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 19:19

The ones I can think of are Russia, Japan and China.

Germany, all of Eastern Europe, save Slovakia are there as well.

Italy, and Sweden are very close.

Russia's in a basketcase league of its own. China has the one child policy which, given the level of development they currently have, will almost certainly increase human welfare for the next generation, though the method used to achieve it is repugnant. Japan could probably live with a much higher birthrate.

For the next 20 years perhaps. After that all bets are off. Standard of living has been declining in Russia.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:22

Below or above replacement?

Seems to me your sweet spot is about 1.6 to 2, which is below replacement.

Seems to me you haven't asked me what I think ideal fertility rates are. If you had bothered, my answer to you would be that I believe it should be up to parents to determine how many children they have. Not as part of some top-down piece of social engineering.

Thankfully, we no longer HAVE the top-down social engineering group known as the Roman Catholic Church watching over us.

:b:

Jon Miller

April 30, 2009, 19:23

Northern Italy paying women 10k to have a child?

JM

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 19:26

Because UNLIKE the West, the benefits of modern medicine, hygiene etc. hit these countries MUCH FASTER

Not really, no. Germany went from an agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse in 40 years. Their 'governance' if you can call it that was an emperor which collapsed in the 20th century.

The improvements were from outside too, as Britain industrialised first.

And through much of the undeveloped world, this DEMOLISHED human welfare, as subsistence agriculture became less productive and there was insufficient political stability to allow outside investment to flow in.

The stats don't show it. Standard of living in Africa has improved slowly but steadily. You see similar booms in South America and Asia when they reach around the level of 1820's standard of living.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:26

I certainly wouldn't vote for that. :q:

I can think of a lot of things I'd rather use my money for than to pay some woman to have babies. :q:

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:27

Not really, no. Germany went from an agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse in 40 years

Are you illiterate?

Or simply stupid?

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 19:28

Seems to me you haven't asked me what I think ideal fertility rates are. If you had bothered, my answer to you would be that I believe it should be up to parents to determine how many children they have. Not as part of some top-down piece of social engineering.

I'm curious as to your personal opinion, not whether you would impose it on other people. What would be the ideal fertility rate, in your opinion?

Thankfully, we no longer HAVE the top-down social engineering group known as the Roman Catholic Church watching over us.

Oddly, the Catholic church has no restrictions whatsoever. Your earlier speech would be right at home. Are you sure you don't want to join?

Riesstiu IV

April 30, 2009, 19:29

Sodomites well burrn an hell! ALLAH ACKBAAAAAAAR!!!

أثبتت الأبحاث العلمية التى قام بها علماء النفس و الأطباء النفسانيين أن التوجه الجنسى "و المقصود به المشاعر و الرغبات الجنسية" لا يمكن أن يكون إختيار.حيث لا يمكن لأى إنسان إختيار نوع مشاعره الجنسية و لا يمكن لأى إنسان إختيار رغباته الجنسية.فالشخص الطبيعى يجد نفسه منجذبا جنسيا و عاطفيا تجاه الجنس الأخر دون أى إرادة منه و كذلك الشخص المثلى يجد نفسه منجذبا تجاه الأفراد من نفس جنسه دون أى إرادة منه للمزيد عن هذا الموضوع يمكنكم قرآة المقالة التالية في موقع اتحاد علماء النفس الأمريكيين

MOBIUS

April 30, 2009, 19:31

I just love how Ben can be so utterly moronically stupid across so many subjects...:lol::lol::lol:

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:33

Standard of living in Africa has improved slowly but steadily.

Uhhhhhhh.......NO

Per-capita GDP growth in subsaharan Africa was NEGATIVE for most of the second half of the 20th century. Growth there has been PRECISELY NOT slow and steady. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:38

I'm curious as to your personal opinion, not whether you would impose it on other people. What would be the ideal fertility rate, in your opinion?

I DON'T KNOW

Haven't I made that clear enough already?

I do know what constitutes a fertility rate which is far too high. When subsistence agriculture is all you have to rely on and people have so many children that the arable land available is overburdened then THAT is too high.

I DON'T know what constitutes an ideal fertility rate, especially in a society as complex as that of a developed nation.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 19:41

The thought that you can't even get a simple thing like the recent economic growth of Africa right yet you're qualified to determine as complex as what an ideal fertility rate would be is actually quite hilarious to me.

:b:

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 19:43

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 19:48

I do know what constitutes a fertility rate which is far too high.

Ok, then you do know what would be the ideal fertility rate.

When subsistence agriculture is all you have to rely on and people have so many children that the arable land available is overburdened then THAT is too high.

Great. You said it was good that nations were reducing their fertility rate to a more 'reasonable' level. Clearly you do have certain signposts out there.

As for myself, I don't buy the myth of overpopulation.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 20:06

Ok, then you do know what would be the ideal fertility rate.

No. You fail. I know how to recognize an upper bound. That does NOT mean I know how to determine the quantity itself.

Retard.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 20:07

Great. You said it was good that nations were reducing their fertility rate to a more 'reasonable' level. Clearly you do have certain signposts out there.

As for myself, I don't buy the myth of overpopulation.

I don't buy the myth of current global overpopulation. But there ARE recent examples of LOCAL overpopulation.

KrazyHorse

April 30, 2009, 20:31

GDP per capita of Africa

1700
400

1820
418

1870
444

1913
585

1950
852

1972
1365

GDP per capita of Western Europe in 1820:

1232

GDP per capita has increased roughly 50 percent from 1950 to 1972.

:lol: at cherrypicking data (from some source you didn't bother to name, I might add)

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/geo3/?src=/geo/geo3/english/093.htm

Over the next 25 years, growth in GDP per capita averaged ~ -1% per annum for subsaharan Africa.

Growth in Africa is ANYTHING but "slow and steady". It has been, over the last half century, "chaotic and almost non-existent".

MrFun

April 30, 2009, 20:42

Geez ****ing christ. Let's get back on topic. :)

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 20:51

at cherrypicking data (from some source you didn't bother to name, I might add)

From the source I already posted in the thread. If you had read the source, you'd have known that.

Read up next time before you accuse me of cherrypicking.

Over the next 25 years, growth in GDP per capita averaged ~ -1% per annum for subsaharan Africa.

You specifically stated the second half of the century, and for Africa as a whole not 'subsaharan Africa'.

Obviously, you were wrong. There has been slow and steady increases in GDP in Africa as a whole since 1950.

Ben Kenobi

April 30, 2009, 20:52

I know how to recognize an upper bound. That does NOT mean I know how to determine the quantity itself.

Fine. What's the upper bound then?

Velociryx

April 30, 2009, 21:05

:rockon:

This might be the most fascinating exchange in the history of the OT.

Ben...there are no words.

-=Vel=-

Drake Tungsten

April 30, 2009, 21:17

MrFun

April 30, 2009, 21:24

Where did KH say that BK is the only one to constantly lie and present falsehoods as facts??

Drake Tungsten

April 30, 2009, 21:26

Where did I say that KH said that BK is the only one to constantly lie and present falsehoods as facts??

MrFun

April 30, 2009, 21:29

You post ridiculous rants based on false premises, and when called on these falsehoods you refuse to acknowledge them.

To be fair, Ben is hardly the only poster on Poly to do this. See the previous poster as an example.

I guess there was another reason you had to point out to KH that BK is not the only one who engages in such behavior.

Drake Tungsten

April 30, 2009, 21:41

Do you not understand what "to be fair" means?

MrFun

April 30, 2009, 21:48

yeah - never mind, then :o

Velociryx

April 30, 2009, 21:50

How lovely of Ben's first cousin to drop by. And talking about himself again I see.

Marvellous. :)

-=Vel=-

chequita guevara

April 30, 2009, 23:27

Geez ****ing christ. Let's get back on topic. :)

Pointing out what an idiot Ben is is the topic.

MrFun

May 1, 2009, 00:21

Pointing out what an idiot Ben is is the topic.

oh :cringe:

KrazyHorse

May 1, 2009, 01:16

You post ridiculous rants based on false premises, and when called on these falsehoods you refuse to acknowledge them.

To be fair, Ben is hardly the only poster on Poly to do this. See the previous poster as an example.

I never argue with vel. His posts are too boring to read.

Ben's getting there in this discussion. I can only get amused so many times at his ignoring the data that I post.

:(

KrazyHorse

May 1, 2009, 01:17

Do you not understand what "to be fair" means?

Honestly, is there anybody else here quite as blatant as him?

Drake Tungsten

May 1, 2009, 01:23

I usually don't read Ben's posts, so I don't really know. It just seemed weird that you were calling him out for something 90% of poly posters are guilty of.

KrazyHorse

May 1, 2009, 01:26

Like I said, I've seen other people do it once in a while. But when you talk to Ben he simply responds to an edited version of your post in which he's not demonstrated to be wrong. Perhaps I'm being unfair to him, but I really doubt it. He's the forum whipping boy for a reason. I remember that he used to actually behave more reasonably (though his opinions were still batshit insane). As I recall, the change was 2-3 years ago.

Drake Tungsten

May 1, 2009, 01:36

I remember that he used to actually behave more reasonably (though his opinions were still batshit insane).

I guess that's still how I think of him.

Robert Plomp

May 1, 2009, 01:45

Discuss the topic, not the participants.

Ming

May 1, 2009, 01:49

Discuss the topic, not the participants.

;)

However, you might want to change your badge and title to something with a little more force behind it :D

Tuberski

May 1, 2009, 01:50

That don't sound right.

AND GET RID OF THE NEWS EDITOR TAG!!!!! :doitnow!:

:p ACK!

Robert Plomp

May 1, 2009, 01:54

So much to do, so little time! :D

Nugog

May 1, 2009, 01:59

However, you might want to change your badge and title to something with a little more force behind it :D

:b:

KrazyHorse

May 1, 2009, 02:01

Discuss the topic, not the participants.

That's less fun.

MOBIUS

May 1, 2009, 06:21

Yeah, balls to that!

Speaking of which, my estimation of you, KH, is somewhat diminished. Ben is clearly a total loon and yet you freely waste a large amount of time actually replying to each and every one of his posts when there is clearly no need to do so. I thought you were smarter than that.

Q Classic

May 1, 2009, 09:00

Discuss the topic, not the participants.

OMG WTF Who the hell?!?!!?

MOBIUS

May 1, 2009, 09:04

He's a creationist - that's all you need to know.

Ben Kenobi

May 1, 2009, 09:42

But when you talk to Ben he simply responds to an edited version of your post in which he's not demonstrated to be wrong.

Where did I edit your post?

Perhaps I'm being unfair to him, but I really doubt it. He's the forum whipping boy for a reason.

And that's because of me?

I remember that he used to actually behave more reasonably (though his opinions were still batshit insane). As I recall, the change was 2-3 years ago.

I'm happy to admit when I am wrong, but when you avoid addressing my thesis, your posts get really tiresome.

KH, you are so much better then this. I don't know why you can't simply argue against my point and leave it at that rather then attacking me personally.

Asher

May 1, 2009, 09:51

Ben, the problem is you have no point. All you have is strawmen and lies. There's no point to attacking those over and over. The root needs to be pulled. :nod:

MOBIUS

May 1, 2009, 09:59

I'm happy to admit when I am wrong

:lol::lol::lol:

Ben Kenobi

May 1, 2009, 10:03

Ben, the problem is you have no point.

Point is that western social liberalism has been detrimental to the west and elsewhere.

All you have is strawmen and lies.

I see. So when you disagree with someone, calling them a liar, and labelling their argument as a strawman is sufficient?

There's no point to attacking those over and over. The root needs to be pulled.

Then perhaps you ought to address the root of the argument. Just because you have no argument simply reveals the bankruptcy of your position.

Velociryx

May 1, 2009, 10:04

Ben... :(

-=Vel=-

Surely he's a 'bot...surely...

Q Classic

May 1, 2009, 11:25

So much to do, so little time! :D

I liked you better as CyberShy. At least I recognized that name.

Bosh

May 2, 2009, 05:12

No matter how http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm someone is, there will always be someone dumb enough to debate them...

Bugs ****ing Bunny

May 2, 2009, 05:54

Point is that western social liberalism has been detrimental to the west and elsewhere.

That's just a bald assertion. You need to clarify why it's been detrimental.

self biased

May 2, 2009, 07:35

No matter how http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm someone is, there will always be someone dumb enough to debate them...

i just looked through all of those. i don't know how i missed them.

MrFun

May 2, 2009, 10:33

Democrats, Republicans, and Gay Marriage (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090502/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_politics)

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer – 38 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public's growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating their party's hard-line opposition to an issue that long has rallied its base.

In recent weeks, Vermont and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage, while New York, Maine and New Hampshire have taken steps in that direction. Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues.

In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week found that a majority of people questioned, by a 55-38 percent margin, oppose gay marriage. But it also found that people, by a 57-38 percent margin, support civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights for same-sex couples, indicating a shift toward more acceptance.

With congressional elections next year, Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan analysts say the changes benefit Democrats, whose bedrock liberals favor gay unions, and disadvantage Republicans, whose conservative base insists that marriage be solely between a man and a woman.

"This is not a sea change. This is a tide that is slowly rising in favor of gay marriage," creating a favorable political situation for Democrats and ever-more difficulty for Republicans, said David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University in California.

Democrats have a broader base filled with more accepting younger voters, as well as flexibility on the issue. Hard-core liberals support gay marriage, while others, including President Barack Obama, take a more moderate position of civil unions and defer to states on gay marriage.

Conversely, the GOP base is older, smaller and more conservative. Republicans have no place to shift on the issue but to the left, because the party has been identified largely with its rock-solid opposition to gay marriage and civil unions. Also, the GOP has no titular head setting the tone on this or other issues.

In recent months, proponents have used state legislatures and court challenges to legalize gay marriage, mindful that the majority of the public still isn't supportive and successful ballot measures would be less likely.

Because of high court rulings, gay marriage now is legal in Iowa, Massachusetts and Connecticut. A Vermont law allowing gay marriage will take effect in September. New Hampshire and New Jersey, where same-sex couples can enter into civil unions, are considering gay marriage legislation. So are Maine and New York.

Political insiders no doubt will pay close attention to developments in Iowa and New Hampshire, early presidential voting states, to see how the issue plays out in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

Despite the changes, gay-marriage opponents are buoyed by a voter initiative in California that blocked the state from allowing gay marriage, and by the 29 states where voters have approved state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

For years, the GOP and its conservative base has used its opposition to gay marriage to drive Republican turnout in elections and marginalize party moderates. Measures defining marriage between a man and a woman that were on ballots in a slew of states in 2004 were widely credited with boosting the number of conservative voters, giving Republican George W. Bush an edge over Democrat John Kerry.

But there's been conflicting evidence since then over just how much that contributed to Bush's victory.

What's certain is that opposition to gay marriage for decades has been a potent tool for the GOP in rallying social conservatives. They are critical to the party's grass-roots organizing and small-dollar fundraising.

But as more states accept gay and lesbian unions, there is a debate inside the party over how it should position itself on the issue. The dispute is just one part of a broader struggle within the out-of-power GOP over its identity and whether it should focus on rallying conservatives or attracting supporters from across the political spectrum.

Some prominent Republicans are backing away from cut-and-dried opposition, and some party operatives say it's only a matter of time before others follow suit because the country is changing.

Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, a Mormon who is a potential presidential candidate, backed a 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But he says he favors civil unions and extending some legal rights to gay couples.

Last month, John McCain's chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, told the Log Cabin Republicans: "Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds ... that the party might be in the wrong on the question."

The shifting landscape is emboldening the gay-rights' movement, a pillar of the Democratic Party's left flank.

"We are at a tipping point moment," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocate of gay rights. "The lingering minority that continues to think that the way to win is to hold GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) people up as a wedge could not be more out of touch."

Ben Kenobi

May 2, 2009, 13:46

That's just a bald assertion. You need to clarify why it's been detrimental.

It weakens traditional families, like divorce has done. It also leads to fewer marriages, and fewer kids born inside those marriages. I think illegitimacy is up something like 5x what it was prior to 1950.

I see gay marriage as an extension of no-fault divorce, and will exacerbate the same problems we've seen associated with divorce. Fatherless children, are much more likely to join a gang, get arrested, the whole nine yards, and that is the biggest result of divorce. Tell me how gay marriage is going to change this development, when it asserts, just the opposite that the problem is that there is only one parent and not two, rather then having a mom and a dad?

KrazyHorse

May 2, 2009, 13:46

That's just a bald assertion. You need to clarify why it's been detrimental.

You haven't been reading his posts?

It's been detrimental because the wogs have now managed to begin pulling themselves out of the dark ages. Ben prefers a world where white people are the only ones who aren't abjectly poor.

Ben Kenobi

May 2, 2009, 13:50

Well, considering that I used to be an Agnostic and eventually became a Catholic, I'm not sure why Ferrus Cranus applies to me. :)

Ben Kenobi

May 2, 2009, 13:54

It's been detrimental because the wogs have now managed to begin pulling themselves out of the dark ages. Ben prefers a world where white people are the only ones who aren't abjectly poor.

It's been detrimental, in the past 50 years, because output has slowed, and the West has lost ground.

I have no problem with The west and everywhere else growing as fast as they can, I don't believe that the sole reason the west has lost ground is because other nations are doing better. I believe it's also because of the social developments of the last 50 years.

I could have cited the former soviet union or even Japan, which have had much more spectacular percentage-wise drops in output. Those drops worry me that the same fate awaits Western Europe too.

KrazyHorse

May 2, 2009, 14:03

May 2, 2009, 13:54
Remove user from ignore list
Ben Kenobi
This message is hidden because Ben Kenobi is on your ignore list.

Sorry, honey. You're back on ignore. I'll give you another chance in 6 months or so.

:(

Ben Kenobi

May 2, 2009, 14:06

:rolleyes:

That was weak, KH.

Make an argument and rather then defend it, you put the other person on ignore.

chequita guevara

May 2, 2009, 14:13

Some ass deleted my message.

chequita guevara

May 2, 2009, 14:15

:rolleyes:

That was weak, KH.

Make an argument and rather then defend it, you put the other person on ignore.

What's the point? You'll ignore it mostly, cherry picking parts that you can make wild assertions and lies about. Arguing with you is like beating ones head on a brick wall. You are impervious to facts or logic. All you do is spew lies.

DanS

May 2, 2009, 14:17

It weakens traditional families, like divorce has done. It also leads to fewer marriages, and fewer kids born inside those marriages. I think illegitimacy is up something like 5x what it was prior to 1950.

I see gay marriage as an extension of no-fault divorce, and will exacerbate the same problems we've seen associated with divorce. Fatherless children, are much more likely to join a gang, get arrested, the whole nine yards, and that is the biggest result of divorce. Tell me how gay marriage is going to change this development, when it asserts, just the opposite that the problem is that there is only one parent and not two, rather then having a mom and a dad?

I agree with the divorce bit (except that gay marriage is a symptom rather than a cause), but realize that this argument can be turned on its head with regard to gay marriage. Gay marriage could help stabilize gay relationships, which would be good for society.

Jon Miller

May 2, 2009, 14:18

I agree with the divorce bit (except that gay marriage is a symptom rather than the cause), but realize that this argument can be turned on its head with regard to gay marriage. Gay marriage could help stabilize gay relationships, which would be good for society.

Exactly!

JM

DaShi

May 2, 2009, 14:34

KrazyHorse

May 2, 2009, 14:55

I know, I have too much faith in humanity.

But hope springs eternal.

chequita guevara

May 2, 2009, 15:42

The hell you do.

GePap

May 2, 2009, 17:04

The difference between civil unions and marriage is not "just semantics" because when it comes to the law, semantics is of fundamental importance. All estate and benefits laws out there were drafted prior to the concept of civil unions, and the term does not exist in any of them. Anyone who thinks that all one has to do is pass a law that says "civil unions = marriage for all times" is fooling themselves because that is not how the law works, at least in this country. To make those two trully eqaul, you would have to go back and ammend every single law that grants married people some benefit that non-married people have and insert "civil union" in there. Many gay couples are forced to spend tens of thousands on lawyers just to create a parallel legal structure that doesn't even really equal that which is granted by just going to a county clerk and getting a marriage license for whatever small amount of money one is charged.

Given that the state, not religious organizations, define who is married to whom, the state is free to change its working definiton at will - regardless of religious opinions. Nothing in changing the state's own laws would force religious institutions to perform rituals they don't want to perform.

Drake Tungsten

May 2, 2009, 17:40

The difference between civil unions and marriage is not "just semantics" because when it comes to the law, semantics is of fundamental importance.

This sentence makes no sense.

Ben Kenobi

May 3, 2009, 14:04

I agree with the divorce bit (except that gay marriage is a symptom rather than a cause), but realize that this argument can be turned on its head with regard to gay marriage. Gay marriage could help stabilize gay relationships, which would be good for society.

That's not been the case here. The big desire for gay marriage up here is so that when the breakups arise, they have access to division of property via divorce.

We had 0 gay marriages among residents of BC here in like 2 years. Gay people are not all that interested in marriage. However, we have started to see a lowering of the marriage rate, and an increase in out of wedlock births.

Asher

May 3, 2009, 14:07

The difference between civil unions and marriage is not "just semantics" because when it comes to the law, semantics is of fundamental importance.

This sentence makes no sense.
It does if you twist your mind Twister-style.

He's saying it is semantics, but semantics are important in law.

Koyaanisqatsi

May 6, 2009, 12:57

Maine is official:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30602151/

Maine enacts law allowing gay marriages
State becomes fifth to do so; New Hampshire could decide later today
The Associated Press
updated 12:59 p.m. ET, Wed., May 6, 2009

AUGUSTA, Maine - Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill Wednesday allowing gay marriages, making Maine the fifth state in the nation to do so.

Earlier Wednesday, the Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday.

Debate was brief. Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, turned the gavel over to an openly gay member, Sen. Lawrence Bliss, D-South Portland, to preside over the final vote.

Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed "at the expense of the people of faith."

"You are making a decision that is not well-founded," warned Plowman.

But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to recognize gay marriage.

"We respect religious liberties. ... This is long overdue," said Bartlett, D-Gorham.

Maine became the fourth state in New England to allow same-sex marriages. Connecticut enacted a bill after being ordered to allow gay marriages by the courts, and Vermont passed a bill over the governor's veto. Massachusetts' high court has ordered the state to recognize gay marriages.

New Hampshire's House was also expected to vote on a gay marriage bill Wednesday and send it to Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who has not indicated whether he would sign the legislation.

In Rhode Island, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been introduced but is not expected to pass this year.

Outside New England, Iowa is recognizing gay marriages on court orders. The practice was briefly legal in California before voters banned it.

MOBIUS

May 6, 2009, 13:23

No stemming the tide now, Ben - there'll be perfectly legally married gays living all over the US before long...

A couple could even move in right next to you!:eek:

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 13:28

There's already a group in Maine that wants to convert this to a referendum so they can ban gay marriage.

MOBIUS

May 6, 2009, 13:35

Geez, whenever something progressive happens, there's always a panda****er around trying to spoil it for the rest of us...:rolleyes:

Arrian

May 6, 2009, 13:35

New England :b:

Tell ya what, Ben. We'll try it out up here. When the sky does not fall, when fire does not rain down from the heavens... when people are happier because of it, others will follow.

-Arrian

Imran Siddiqui

May 6, 2009, 14:03

There's already a group in Maine that wants to convert this to a referendum so they can ban gay marriage.

Though it will likely be more difficult to overturn the law than to get it passed by refendum in the first place (according to Nate Silver).

Maine :b:

chequita guevara

May 6, 2009, 15:53

What is different about Maine is that they are the first to make gay marriage legal without being forced to do so by a court. :b:

Ramo

May 6, 2009, 15:57

Second. Vermont was the first. New Hampshire might not be far behind (the Dem Guv is undecided about signing the legislation). New England :b:

chequita guevara

May 6, 2009, 16:00

I think Vermont was forced by the courts. IIRC, the courts gave them a choice of either legalizing gay marriage or creating a substantive equivalent and they first chose civil unions, later choosing to legalize gay marriage.

Ramo

May 6, 2009, 16:02

MrFun

May 6, 2009, 16:08

Hurrah for New England states (except for Rhode Island so far). :)

chequita guevara

May 6, 2009, 16:11

Civil unions were forced by the courts (and I think they were the first state to pass a civil union law). Gay marriage was all about the legislature. It actually managed to pass despite the GOP Guv's veto.

I'm not giving them credit, because the law banning same sex marriage was struck down by a court. Maine was the first state not forced by the courts to change its laws.

Arrian

May 6, 2009, 16:11

VT voted in gay marriage, Che. edit: crosspost... ok, be that way then. ;)

CT was via the courts.

-Arrian

chequita guevara

May 6, 2009, 16:13

On December 20, 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Vermont that same-sex couples are “entitled under Chapter I, Article 7, of the Vermont Constitution to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples”. The Court did not rule on whether Vermont was required to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but suggested that the legislature could enact a parallel licensing scheme affording the same substantial benefits as marriage to same-sex couples.

So we'll give VT credit for being the first state to voluntarily enact gay marriage, but Maine gets the credit for being the first to overturn its law against gay marriage without being forced by a court.

Imran Siddiqui

May 6, 2009, 16:25

You do realize how silly this entire argument is, right, che?

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 16:30

Tell ya what, Ben. We'll try it out up here. When the sky does not fall, when fire does not rain down from the heavens... when people are happier because of it, others will follow.

Oh sure, I'm sure some people are happier, but long term it's not a good idea. :)

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 16:34

No stemming the tide now, Ben - there'll be perfectly legally married gays living all over the US before long...

Wouldn't change the fact that this is a bad decision.

A couple could even move in right next to you!

What makes you think I haven't experienced it already? Part of my opposition is because of personal experience.

Arrian

May 6, 2009, 16:46

As you know well, I disagree. I think letting gays marry, aside from being right from a moral standpoint, will have a positive impact on society.

I know a gay couple with adopted kids and I'm absolutely convinced that family is a net positive for our society. I see multiple positive impacts from gay marriage. I do not find your predictions of negative ones compelling. I guess we'll see.

The institution of marriage has its problems, but it's not the fault of the gays (having been deliberately excluded until now). My marriage is solid and happy, and gays marrying will do absolutely nothing to change it - or the future marriage(s) of any kids we may have (unless, of course, we have a gay child, in which case the change will turn out to be a clear plus for our offspring).

The problems society is having with births out of wedlock and the problems (often) resulting therefrom are real - we agree to a point on that. I believe the problems are basically tied to two issues: knowledge and expectations. Knowledge is fairly easy: kids are often dumb and need basics about sex drilled (heh) into them. Sex ed is spotty nowadays, from what I can gather. Expectations: lots of people believe in fairy tales. Sometimes that's harmless. When it comes to the fairy tale of marriage, however, it's a problem. Our culture sells a product called marriage, and like most ad campaigns it lies to you (sorry, Ming). The disconnect between what many people think marriage is and what it really turns out to be results in unhappiness and, in turn, divorce. Your solution appears to be to take away divorce (no-fault, anyway) as an option. Great, now you force unhappy people to stay together. Shitty solution, IMO. I'm really not sure how to solve the expectations problem, but if one is really concerned about the institution of marriage, I think that's the point of attack.

-Arrian

p.s. IMO, the key to all of this is to come up with solutions (more likely, partial solutions) that avoid acting all authoritarian.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 16:49

What makes you think I haven't experienced it already? Part of my opposition is because of personal experience.

I had no idea you were gay married once, but that makes so much sense now.

Poor soul, being ex-gay and all.

But just because your ex-husband left you for a saner man doesn't mean you should **** on everyone else's happiness.

Arrian

May 6, 2009, 16:52

Some gay couple kept Ben awake nights having amazing sex and he's held a grudge. The man needs his beauty sleep. :nod:

;)

-Arrian

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:03

As you know well, I disagree. I think letting gays marry, aside from being right from a moral standpoint, will have a positive impact on society.

How so?

I know a gay couple with adopted kids and I'm absolutely convinced that family is a net positive for our society.

I don't. I think the kid is going to be deprived of a father, and experience the same troubles as any other kid without a father.

I see multiple positive impacts from gay marriage. I do not find your predictions of negative ones compelling. I guess we'll see.

Such as?

The institution of marriage has its problems, but it's not the fault of the gays (having been deliberately excluded until now). My marriage is solid and happy, and gays marrying will do absolutely nothing to change it - or the future marriage(s) of any kids we may have (unless, of course, we have a gay child, in which case the change will turn out to be a clear plus for our offspring).

What marriage means no longer means what it does. When you say your marriage is 'solid and happy', it doesn't mean what it meant yesterday. I don't know if you have a wife or whatnot. I don't think you've really thought the implications through. As for your children, well, they will be dealing with the issues that we have foisted upon them, and we bear the consequences. If they are raised thinking that 'dad's don't matter' and that 'men and women are interchangeable', then they are going to run into problems when they grow up and realise that they have been lied to their whole life.

Knowledge is fairly easy: kids are often dumb and need basics about sex drilled (heh) into them.

So why then has illegitimacy gone up along with sex education? You would expect to see the opposite. Frankly, kids know lots about sex these days, and I think you are being naive if you think that kids are having babies because they don't know how to do it.

Kids are having babies, because they want to be in a loving relationship. They want a boyfriend and a family, but they don't know how to go about and get the things they really want. We've not taught them how to go about and do so.

Sex ed is spotty nowadays, from what I can gather.

When did you go to school Arrian? Sex education is not spotty at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Expectations: lots of people believe in fairy tales. Sometimes that's harmless. When it comes to the fairy tale of marriage, however, it's a problem. Our culture sells a product called marriage, and like most ad campaigns it lies to you (sorry, Ming). The disconnect between what many people think marriage is and what it really turns out to be results in unhappiness and, in turn, divorce. Your solution appears to be to take away divorce (no-fault, anyway) as an option. Great, now you force unhappy people to stay together. Shitty solution, IMO. I'm really not sure how to solve the expectations problem, but if one is really concerned about the institution of marriage, I think that's the point of attack.

The concept that someone can marry with the consent of two people, and divorce without the consent of both is a problem. You might as well say that I can set up a marriage without the permission of the other person. Divorce is a problem because one person can break it and actually get rewarded for doing so. If you believe that marriage is a contract, the one breaking the contract gets punished, not the one who stayed faithful to it.

In reality those who believe marriage should be a contract, don't really believe that. They believe that marriage should be a non-binding promise. One that can be broken at will whenever one or the other is unhappy with the arrangement. They might not even believe in marriage at all.

This is why I am concerned with gay marriage. Redefining marriage is not going to strengthen marriage, quite the opposite.

What would my solutions be?

1. For starters, I would do away with no-fault divorce. Fault divorce means that there has to be proof of abuse or non-support before the divorce would be granted. If the person still wanted to divorce without proof, they could do so, but they wouldn't be entitled to half the assets of the other person.

2. There has to be education. I agree with you that we aren't giving people the tools that they need to get married and stay married. That needs to change. Sex education is like giving people the keys to the car without training them as to the safe operation of the car. That needs to change. People should be taught how they can get what they really want, a family, husband wife kids and so on.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:06

Some gay couple kept Ben awake nights having amazing sex and he's held a grudge. The man needs his beauty sleep.

Lets just say I found stuff, in my bathroom, that I didn't appreciate having to clean up after.

EPW

May 6, 2009, 17:12

Lets just say I found stuff, in my bathroom, that I didn't appreciate having to clean up after.

semen?

Ramo

May 6, 2009, 17:15

Santorum? (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum)

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:17

Ramo gets the prize. :)

EPW

May 6, 2009, 17:19

So you let your gay neighbors have sex in your bathroom, and they weren't even considerate enough to clean up after themselves? :shame:

Ramo

May 6, 2009, 17:21

Or even invite Ben. :(

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:22

He was my landlord.

He had issues with 'privacy'.

chequita guevara

May 6, 2009, 17:26

You do realize how silly this entire argument is, right, che?

This is Apolyton.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 17:26

I don't. I think the kid is going to be deprived of a father, and experience the same troubles as any other kid without a father.
Is the assumption here that only lesbians adopt? Or that gay men are necessarily fake-mothers and not-fathers?

1. For starters, I would do away with no-fault divorce. Fault divorce means that there has to be proof of abuse or non-support before the divorce would be granted. If the person still wanted to divorce without proof, they could do so, but they wouldn't be entitled to half the assets of the other person.
Strengthens marriage in a way, but has nothing to do with the status of gay marriage.

2. There has to be education. I agree with you that we aren't giving people the tools that they need to get married and stay married. That needs to change. Sex education is like giving people the keys to the car without training them as to the safe operation of the car. That needs to change. People should be taught how they can get what they really want, a family, husband wife kids and so on.
Again, has nothing to do with the status of gay marraige.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 17:27

Or even invite Ben. :(

Wow, so not only was Ben dumped by his ex-husband, his ex-husband was running around on him and left incriminating evidence behind.

No wonder he's against gay marriage.

KrazyHorse

May 6, 2009, 17:28

Some gay couple kept Ben awake nights having amazing sex

Was Ben the meat or one of the buns?

chequita guevara

May 6, 2009, 17:28

I guess that's fair. Hetero couples keep having sex next to our building, and I hate all heterosexuals because of it.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 17:29

He was my landlord.
Most landlords are dicks.

I could argue that straight people shouldn't be allowed to run the economy, since they're liars and cheats - my current landlord claimed he lost my rent check, demanded I write him another (after yelling at me and calling me dishonest and dishonorable), and then tried to cash both.

I cancelled the "lost" one, but the gall of it.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:30

Is the assumption here that only lesbians adopt? Or that gay men are necessarily fake-mothers and not-fathers?

I'm guessing the couple Arrian refers to are female. Am I correct in that assumption?

chequita guevara

May 6, 2009, 17:30

You have a 50-50 chance.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:33

Most landlords are dicks.

This fellow was certifiable.

He would go through my room, and I kept a camera of it and caught him.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 17:40

This fellow was certifiable.

He would go through my room, and I kept a camera of it and caught him.

So really, your homophobia is due to a shitty landlord and the reaction you've gotten to your homophobic comments.

I'm amazed you don't wish to turn more groups of people into second-class citizens.

Still, it's time for you to get over your gay divorce.

MrFun

May 6, 2009, 17:40

How so?

I don't. I think the kid is going to be deprived of a father, and experience the same troubles as any other kid without a father.

The concept that someone can marry with the consent of two people, and divorce without the consent of both is a problem. You might as well say that I can set up a marriage without the permission of the other person. Divorce is a problem because one person can break it and actually get rewarded for doing so. If you believe that marriage is a contract, the one breaking the contract gets punished, not the one who stayed faithful to it.

1) How the **** would a kid who is adopted by two gay men be deprived of a father? Or if a kid was conceived through surrogacy and has two lesbian parents that allow for the biological father generous visitation rights?

2) Your argument that recognizing marriage as a civil right means right to force someone to marry you is utterly, completely retarded and asinine. RIGHT TO MARRY MEANS THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE TO MARRY SOMEONE WHO WISHES TO MARRY YOU provided they're both mentally competent adults and of age of consent. This means two people who wish to marry one another who happen to be gay men can do so, as it is their civil right.

Your STUPID remark about "forcing someone to marry you" makes as much sense if you tried applying it to U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Loving versus Virginia - "oh no, if people of different races have right to marry one another, they can FORCE someone to marry him/her!"

This really is sad, because either you are so naturally stupid that you really believe civil right to marry means right to force someone to marry you, OR you KNOW that this is a completely false, fallacious argument but you present it anyway to distort the issue. Either way, it is just plain pathetic. :q:

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 17:41

I'm guessing the couple Arrian refers to are female. Am I correct in that assumption?

Judging by that one line where you made that assumption, I think you have a clear bias towards thinking only lesbians are interested in raising children.

And why wouldn't they? They're women, right? Predisposed to it because of their uteri.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 17:42

Your STUPID remark about "forcing someone to marry you" makes as much sense if you tried applying it to U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Loving versus Virginia - "oh no, if people of different races have right to marry one another, they can FORCE someone to marry him/her!"

Well, you've heard of all those stories of straight men being forced to marry gay men in Iowa and the Northeast, right? Shotgun weddings, so to speak.

Ramo

May 6, 2009, 17:44

So really, your homophobia is due to a shitty landlord and the reaction you've gotten to your homophobic comments.

I'm amazed you don't wish to turn more groups of people into second-class citizens.

Still, it's time for you to get over your gay divorce.

Yeah, the landlord's behavior could be related to this person's gender, ethnic makeup, or religious affiliation. That means at least three other demographic groups, besides gay people, should be second class citizens. :nod:

KrazyHorse

May 6, 2009, 17:45

What if both parents are trannies?

Picture this: each has their original genitalia. One's a F->M tranny who's gotten her/m tits cut off, is taking hormones and has grown a beard. The other's M->F who's gotten implants, is taking hormones and shaves his/r entire body (stem to stern).

They have one set of everything between them.

:b:

MrFun

May 6, 2009, 17:45

KH, you really are crazy - in a good way. :)

KrazyHorse

May 6, 2009, 17:46

I am the most creative mother****er you will ever meet.

MrFun

May 6, 2009, 17:47

:lol::b:

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:49

So really, your homophobia is due to a shitty landlord and the reaction you've gotten to your homophobic comments.

Not really. My personal experience with him is that he was simply not right in the head. It reinforced my impressions that being gay really wasn't a positive lifestyle if you want to put it that way.

chequita guevara

May 6, 2009, 17:55

And meeting you would make most people hate Christianity.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:55

1) How the **** would a kid who is adopted by two gay men be deprived of a father? Or if a kid was conceived through surrogacy and has two lesbian parents that allow for the biological father generous visitation rights?

Arrian has not yet answered the query. He brought up this specific gay couple whom adopted, and I am assuming they are lesbians. Now, I may be wrong on this specific case, but I am not yet wrong, until Arrian steps forward to confirm.

As for the men, they are depriving their child of a mother. Alternative arrangements are always more prone to breakdowns then their equivalents.

2) Your argument that recognizing marriage as a civil right means right to force someone to marry you is utterly, completely retarded and asinine. RIGHT TO MARRY MEANS THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE TO MARRY SOMEONE WHO WISHES TO MARRY YOU provided they're both mentally competent adults and of age of consent. This means two people who wish to marry one another who happen to be gay men can do so, as it is their civil right.

I do not have the civil right to marry any woman whom I would choose, even if she would desire to do so, end of story. Until I do so you cannot argue that marriage is a natural right. There are limitations as you have cited. One of those limitations is between a man and a woman, and it is up to you, to show me why that limitation ought to be lifted while the others should remain. Arguing that marriage is a natural right, is an argument to remove those limitations altogether.

Your STUPID remark about "forcing someone to marry you" makes as much sense if you tried applying it to U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Loving versus Virginia - "oh no, if people of different races have right to marry one another, they can FORCE someone to marry him/her!"

Do you believe men and women are interchangeable, Mr. Fun? Yes or no?

This really is sad, because either you are so naturally stupid that you really believe civil right to marry means right to force someone to marry you, OR you KNOW that this is a completely false, fallacious argument but you present it anyway to distort the issue. Either way, it is just plain pathetic.

You are making an argument against one that I never made or stated. Do you enjoy your rants? I'm perplexed as to where you are getting your material, Mr. Fun. It's not from me.

KrazyHorse

May 6, 2009, 17:56

And meeting you would make most people hate Christianity.

Is ben insulting me?

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 17:57

Not really. My personal experience with him is that he was simply not right in the head. It reinforced my impressions that being gay really wasn't a positive lifestyle if you want to put it that way.

As Che says, personal experience with you is that you're simply not right in the head, and it reinforces the impressions that being a Christianist who professes a "Christian" faith while cherry picking which precepts to follow isn't a positive lifestyle if you want to put it that way.

Y'know, kinda like how the Mullahs and Imams who issue fatwas over harmless bullshit and proclaim jihad make Islam seem backwards and unpleasant.

Yes, yes, judge God not by the works of man and all of that.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 17:58

Judging by that one line where you made that assumption, I think you have a clear bias towards thinking only lesbians are interested in raising children.

Call me a riverboat gambler. I'm willing to bet Arrian's example couple were lesbians.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 18:01

As Che says, personal experience with you is that you're simply not right in the head, and it reinforces the impressions that being a Christianist who professes a "Christian" faith while cherry picking which precepts to follow isn't a positive lifestyle if you want to put it that way.

Good, then I'm over the target. I'd be worried if folks who hated Christianity liked me.

As for cherry picking, which Christian beliefs am I ignoring?

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 18:01

Arrian has not yet answered the query. He brought up this specific gay couple whom adopted, and I am assuming they are lesbians. Now, I may be wrong on this specific case, but I am not yet wrong, until Arrian steps forward to confirm.
And the assumption is what we're pointing out.

I do not have the civil right to marry any woman whom I would choose, even if she would desire to do so, end of story.
Actually you do, with very few limitations, age, relation, and current state of weddedness being among them. End of story.

Arguing that marriage is a natural right, is an argument to remove those limitations altogether.
Actually, I don't think the government should be in the business of marriages, only civil unions.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 18:03

As for cherry picking, which Christian beliefs am I ignoring?

"Love your neighbor as yourself," for one.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 18:03

Y'know, kinda like how the Mullahs and Imams who issue fatwas over harmless bullshit and proclaim jihad make Islam seem backwards and unpleasant.

Oh, so in saying that my personal impression of gay people has been tempered by my experience with my landlord is the same as declaring a fatwa against Gay people? I'm really seeing it.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 18:04

Actually, that's a bad example, because what with your homophobia and other political beliefs, it's clear that if you think it's all right with your religion, you must really hate yourself.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 18:05

Oh, so in saying that my personal impression of gay people has been tempered by my experience with my landlord is the same as declaring a fatwa against Gay people? I'm really seeing it.

Wow. You clearly have poor reading comprehension, because that's clearly not what I said.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 18:06

"Love your neighbor as yourself," for one.

That is a good tenet.

How do you suggest I should have handled the situation with my landlord?

[qutoe]
Actually, that's a bad example, because what with your homophobia and other political beliefs, it's clear that if you think it's all right with your religion, you must really hate yourself.
[/quote]

I am a sinner. If I loved myself why would I be a Christian?

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 18:12

That is a good tenet.

How do you suggest I should have handled the situation with my landlord?
Left your distaste and displeasure with him and him alone, and not used it to "temper" your view of other people in that same group.

It may sound to you like I detest religious people, but that's far from the truth. I dislike those who seek to force their beliefs upon mine--you being a classic example.

I am a sinner. If I loved myself why would I be a Christian?
That's the kind of viewpoint, thanks to being raised Catholic and having all of that guilt coupled with Asian filial piety that drove me to suicide once and had me repeatedly considering it again and again.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 18:16

And the assumption is what we're pointing out.

I'm glad you did. Thank you. Obviously I never intended to put that there, and I did so without thinking.

Actually you do, with very few limitations, age, relation, and current state of weddedness being among them. End of story.

Then it's not a natural right, I'm sorry.

Actually, I don't think the government should be in the business of marriages, only civil unions.

Great, so join me then and oppose gay marriage. :)

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 18:23

Then it's not a natural right, I'm sorry.
I'm arguing for equal rights.

Great, so join me then and oppose gay marriage.
No, since you're still in favor of straight marriage.

Why? Because if the government won't get out of the marriage business, then I feel it's only right that the government expands its definition--not the religious one, but the civil one--to be equal and non-discriminatory.

And since the public seems to only want the government more entwined in marriage...

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 18:24

Left your distaste and displeasure with him and him alone, and not used it to "temper" your view of other people in that same group.

Ok, now you have to go back to what I actually said. I said my impression of the homosexual lifestyle was tempered by him, and his life. For the person who was supposed to be gay, he was completely unhappy.

I do not think it unreasonable if I avoid doing things the way that he did from the example that he showed me. He is not the only one either, there are others that I have met as well who had similar issues.

It may sound to you like I detest religious people, but that's far from the truth. I dislike those who seek to force their beliefs upon mine--you being a classic example.

Oh, so Christ didn't force his beliefs on anyone when he said, "I and the Father are one?" The mere act of articulating one's beliefs is not forcing anyone to read them let alone abide by them, even as it confronts those who think otherwise. What you are saying is you dislike intellectual confrontation, and would prefer not to engage with others who disagree with you.

That's the kind of viewpoint, thanks to being raised Catholic and having all of that guilt coupled with Asian filial piety that drove me to suicide once and had me repeatedly considering it again and again.

Well I am sorry to hear that. Christ loves you very much QCubed, so much that he died for you. Never forget it. No matter what happens to you in your life, he has not forgotten or given up on you.

KrazyHorse

May 6, 2009, 18:24

No, since you're still in favor of straight marriage.

Ahem. We prefer opposite marriage

BlackCat

May 6, 2009, 18:24

Great, so join me then and oppose gay marriage. :)

No problem if you agree that the church can perform marriages that have any kind of legality :)

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 18:28

I'm arguing for equal rights.

That's a different argument. Does the system treat a gay person any different then anyone else?

No, since you're still in favor of straight marriage.

So long as there are government benefits associated with marriage, I can see why the government ought to regulate them. However, I would be more then willing to state that the government should have no role whatsoever if the system were to change.

Why? Because if the government won't get out of the marriage business, then I feel it's only right that the government expands its definition--not the religious one, but the civil one--to be equal and non-discriminatory.

The definition treats a gay man no different from a straight man. It neither deprives him of marriage, nor imposes additional burdens.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 18:34

Ok, now you have to go back to what I actually said. I said my impression of the homosexual lifestyle was tempered by him, and his life. For the person who was supposed to be gay, he was completely unhappy.
Are you trying to conflate two disparate meanings of the word "gay" here?

I do not think it unreasonable if I avoid doing things the way that he did from the example that he showed me. He is not the only one either, there are others that I have met as well who had similar issues.
I do not think it unreasonable if I avoid being religious, given the examples all of the religious people have shown me about their issues, as well as my own experience.

Oh, so Christ didn't force his beliefs on anyone when he said, "I and the Father are one?" The mere act of articulating one's beliefs is not forcing anyone to read them let alone abide by them, even as it confronts those who think otherwise. What you are saying is you dislike intellectual confrontation, and would prefer not to engage with others who disagree with you.
Wrong. Christ offered his beliefs up for people to encounter. He did not trample upon their free will, rights, and option to disbelieve.

You're trying to do the latter.

Well I am sorry to hear that. Christ loves you very much QCubed, so much that he died for you. Never forget it. No matter what happens to you in your life, he has not forgotten or given up on you.
If this line came from a source I respected intellectually, who did not have a habit of outright fabrication, of bigotry, of deliberately misinterpreting other people's words to set up strawmen, maybe I'd consider it.

Actually, I have considered it. And what it boils down to is that I've found organized religion to be toxic to my sanity, and personal spirituality to be utterly useless.

I do not care if Jesus Christ died for me. I did not ask for him to, and I did not need that sacrifice. It's kind of him, but it's like telling me you donated to PETA in my name.

Way to waste your effort.

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 18:37

That's a different argument. Does the system treat a gay person any different then anyone else?
It does in some areas, and Christianists such as yourself are seeking to enshrine it.

So long as there are government benefits associated with marriage, I can see why the government ought to regulate them. However, I would be more then willing to state that the government should have no role whatsoever if the system were to change.
Which is not too different from how I view things, except you're trying to impose your religious beliefs upon the rest of us, and I am preferring to remove them.

The definition treats a gay man no different from a straight man. It neither deprives him of marriage, nor imposes additional burdens.
This has got to be the most disingenuous argument I've seen, the "a gay man can get married to a woman!"

You're right, it doesn't deprive him of a marriage he does not want. It does deprive him of a marriage he does.

The definition treats gays different from straights because straights have additional options to seek marriages they do want, while preventing gays from seeking marriages they want.

Ben Kenobi

May 6, 2009, 18:47

Are you trying to conflate two disparate meanings of the word "gay" here?

Yes. False advertising apparently.

I do not think it unreasonable if I avoid being religious, given the examples all of the religious people have shown me about their issues, as well as my own experience.

And that sir is your choice.

Wrong. Christ offered his beliefs up for people to encounter.

He walked into the temple and taught. He called himself God.

He did not trample upon their free will, rights, and option to disbelieve.

That is very true, but he did confront the pharisees.

You're trying to do the latter.

How so? How am I in any way restricting your free will? You chose to open this thread. You chose to reply to me, and I have chosen to engage in a conversation with you. You are free to leave whenever you wish, and you are free to return whenever you wish.

If this line came from a source I respected intellectually, who did not have a habit of outright fabrication, of bigotry, of deliberately misinterpreting other people's words to set up strawmen, maybe I'd consider it.

Ahh, forget about me. I'm meaningless and useless. It's all on Christ himself. He does love you.

Actually, I have considered it. And what it boils down to is that I've found organized religion to be toxic to my sanity, and personal spirituality to be utterly useless.

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't change the fact that Christ loves you

I do not care if Jesus Christ died for me. I did not ask for him to, and I did not need that sacrifice. It's kind of him, but it's like telling me you donated to PETA in my name.

It's not something I did, but that he did for everyone.

Way to waste your effort.

My effort? What did I do?

Q Classic

May 6, 2009, 19:06

Yes. False advertising apparently.
:rolleyes:

And that sir is your choice.
Yes, exactly. A choice. Whereas the gay is not, and thus bigotry based on that is worse.

He walked into the temple and taught. He called himself God.
He did not, however, try to force the religious authorities to kowtow to him.

That is very true, but he did confront the pharisees.
But he did not try to take over their organization.

How so? How am I in any way restricting your free will? You chose to open this thread. You chose to reply to me, and I have chosen to engage in a conversation with you. You are free to leave whenever you wish, and you are free to return whenever you wish.
You're agitating for enshrining discriminatory laws; you support them; if those actions come to fruition and them discriminate against me, you will have contributed to removing some of my rights and free will.

Ahh, forget about me. I'm meaningless and useless. It's all on Christ himself. He does love you.
I do not ask for the love of someone whom I do not know, did not truly know, and does not truly know me, no matter his or her claims contrary. Additionally, your assumption that you speak on his behalf when I'm more or less in apostasy seems awfully presumptuous.

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't change the fact that Christ loves you
Saying someone loves you is not the same as actually loving you. Additionally, a general love based on philosophy statements without any acts to show it suggests mere lip service.

If Christ loves me, he hasn't been very loving to me, before, during, and after my departure from the Church.

And really, when using my reason and free will, I've come to the conclusion that there's no reason for him to, and no harm if he does or does not; I have no need of his purported love, and no need to satisfy myself with any such delusion on my part.

It's not something I did, but that he did for everyone.

My effort? What did I do?
:rolleyes: Clearly, you're misreading again. It's no wonder you have trouble discussing anything meaningfully with anyone on these boards.

I did not say you did it. I shifted to a general, hypothetical "you", which is apparent in context.