Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Plenty of reasons.

The qualifier was rational. Yes, there are plenty of reasons to oppose gay marriage, all stupid.

No, all of you baby boomer dinosaurs are going to finally die off, and we can get busy fixing up the big turd you've left us.

Too bad, dumbass, I'm GenX. Opposition to gay marriage overwhelming comes from old farts, while support largely comes from GenX, Y, and whatever the hell the current generation is. You are the one whose ideas are becoming extinct. You've just managed to have a little spurt before your demise.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
That's nice.

I'm going to bed now. I will have to wait until tomorrow to see what bullsh*t BK will have in response to my last post.

Why wait?

Here's his response from the future, in brief:

-----

But if you wait 20 years, you will see a barren wasteland. Civilization will cease to exist as we know it. Churches will become homes to massive gay orgies. With the affirmation of gays and gay marriage, people no longer feel the need to procreate. To let the gays marry is to concede defeat, and to concede defeat removes the purpose of procreation -- to breed a massive army to fight teh gays.

Gay marriage is a slipperly slope. Once we grant gay marriage, where do we stop? Why should we let animals rape children? You have no moral integrity. Do as Jesus says.

[Ben Kenobi]

a truly logical person would see that:
1) Kids cost money. A lot of money.

Sure, but if there were no kids, we'd all die. Therefore children are an expense that is necessary to bear and takes a higher priority then other things.

Kant 1 Asher 0.

2) Gay couples make a tremendous amount of money with very little expenses compare to a heterosexual family

You have to count everyone in a family. Lets assume gay 1 (we'll call him Asher), hooks up with Gay 2 (we'll call him Mr. Fun. Lets assume that Ming and Mrs Ming are the other two.

From years 1-20, Gay 1 and Gay 2 are ahead

If we assume everyone is equally productive, and that gay people are 50 percent more productive as a couple, that means that Asher and Mr Fun are actually 10 years ahead of Ming and Mrs. Ming.

However, Daughter Ming and Son Ming start being productive at 20. So that means that the Ming family is twice as productive as they were before, and 50 percent more productive then gay couple. So that means by year 30, Ming family is ahead of gay couple.

By year 40, Ming family has double what gay couple earn.

Kant 2 Asher 0.

3) Gay people know what the other partner wants

And married couples don't? Frankly I'm pretty boring. Why would I want a clone of me?

Kant 3 Asher 0.

It is anything but logical to commit yourself to a PMSy, bloody woman with irrational actions and emotionally needy *****iness. It is anything but logical to create little beings that suck your funds dry while waking you up in the middle of the night.

Just because you are a mysoginist doesn't mean that women are bad. You really are missing out Asher. Women are amazing.

Kant 4 Asher 0

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure, but if there were no kids, we'd all die.

We're all going to die anyway. So's the human race. So will life on Earth. So will the Sun. So will the universe. Everything dies.

[Asher]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure, but if there were no kids, we'd all die.

Therefore children are an expense that is necessary to bear and takes a higher priority then other things.

Kant 1 Asher 0.

How would I die if people stopped having kids?

2) Gay couples make a tremendous amount of money with very little expenses compare to a heterosexual family

You have to count everyone in a family. Lets assume gay 1 (we'll call him Asher), hooks up with Gay 2 (we'll call him Mr. Fun. Lets assume that Ming and Mrs Ming are the other two.

From years 1-20, Gay 1 and Gay 2 are ahead

If we assume everyone is equally productive, and that gay people are 50 percent more productive as a couple, that means that Asher and Mr Fun are actually 10 years ahead of Ming and Mrs. Ming.

However, Daughter Ming and Son Ming start being productive at 20. So that means that the Ming family is twice as productive as they were before, and 50 percent more productive then gay couple. So that means by year 30, Ming family is ahead of gay couple.

By year 40, Ming family has double what gay couple earn.

Kant 2 Asher 0.

Your logic is flawed. Two gay professionals can bring in 200K+ in a year with minimal expenses by the time they're 25. Invest that wisely, or even put it in a savings account, and you'll see massive savings you'll never see back out of your children.

Seriously, do you understand the importance of investing early? Do you understand how expensive kids are? How expensive their schools are? That money is far more valuable, economically, being invested. This is the logical solution. Kids are not a logical solution, they are an emotional one.

3) Gay people know what the other partner wants

And married couples don't? Frankly I'm pretty boring. Why would I want a clone of me?

Kant 3 Asher 0.

You've never had sex so I'm going to just ignore this for your sake.

Just because you are a mysoginist doesn't mean that women are bad. You really are missing out Asher. Women are amazing.

I've ****ed a woman, you haven't. Call me later.

And the point wasn't misogyny, it was illustrating the logical choice. The logicalchoice is to marry another man (who, statistically, earns more money) and never have children, which are net drains on one's finances. I'm illustrating you haven't a ****ing clue how logical arguments work.

[Ben Kenobi]

"You are the one whose ideas are becoming extinct!!"

[Ben Kenobi]

How would I die if people stopped having kids?

We all die. But society keeps going on if people have kids.

It's really simple. If a moral action when universalised leads to the extinction of the particular action then the action is not moral. You cannot universalise homosexuality, ergo it is an immoral action.

Your logic is flawed. To gay professionals can bring in 200K+ in a year with minimal expenses. Invest that wisely, or even put it in a savings account, and you'll see massive savings you'll never see back out of your children.

Yes, but you get at most 40 years. The family keeps on going. That's my point. The family in essence is at infinity.

Seriously, do you understand the importance of investing early? Do you understand how expensive kids are? How expensive their schools are? That money is far more valuable, economically, being invested. This is the logical solution. Kids are not a logical solution, they are an emotional one.

Yes, they are expensive, but you miss the point. The kids make money too, and then their kids, and then their kids and so on.

Your money stops with you, end stop. Once you die, that's it, it's bought the farm, hasta la vista.

And the point wasn't misogyny, it was illustrating the logical choice. The logicalchoice is to marry another man (who, statistically, earns more money) and never have children, which are net drains on one's finances. I'm illustrating you haven't a ****ing clue how logical arguments work.

Kant, meanwhile is kicking your ass. You might want to do something about that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We all die. But society keeps going on if people have kids.

It's really simple. If a moral action when universalised leads to the extinction of the particular action then the action is not moral. You cannot universalise homosexuality, ergo it is an immoral action.

I GOT YOU NOW!

You had asked for a "truly logical" argument, which I provided. You have now IMPLICITLY CONCEDED DEFEAT and are now talking about MORALITY.

I don't give a **** what happens to the world when I die. I'm dead. I don't need to have kids, and if people stopped having kids all it means to me is a quieter plane ride.

Yes, but you get at most 40 years. The family keeps on going. That's my point. The family in essence is at infinity.

It doesn't matter. When I cease to exist, I'm gone. This is the "truly logical" argument. You gain more out of not having kids, making lots of money, and investing it early. This is the "truly logical argument".

Yes, they are expensive, but you miss the point. The kids make money too, and then their kids, and then their kids and so on.

The problem is the kids are so expensive for so long you will mathematically never make that money back even when they start making good money themselves, and that's assuming they'll fork over all your cash to you as well. Face it: kids are bad financial choices. They're not a "truly logical" thing to have.

Your money stops with you, end stop. Once you die, that's it, it's bought the farm, hasta la vista.

Precisely, so why the **** do I care about having kids? That's not logical.

Kant, meanwhile is kicking your ass. You might want to do something about that.

See, this is why I do well in philosophy classes. Adorable little ****ers like you who think you can hide behind the ideas of a big-name philosopher who can't hold their own in a debate. You started off with a comment about being "truly logical", which I then latched onto and illustrated that it is only truly logical not to get married and have kids. It's a bad investment. Then you started talking about morality, like that's some kind of logical entity.

Ben, you're so ****ing confused. Such a clueless little simpleton making his way through the world with his head up his ass smelling the roses.

[Ben Kenobi]

You had asked for a "truly logical" argument, which I provided. You have now IMPLICITLY CONCEDED DEFEAT and are now talking about MORALITY.

That's the best you can do?

Logically, any action that results in less of the same action is illogical. If you universalise homosexuality then you get no homosexuality, which means that homosexuality is irrational.

Kant 5 Asher 0.

I don't give a **** what happens to the world when I die. I'm dead. I don't need to have kids, and if people stopped having kids all it means to me is a quieter plane ride.

That's fine. Society does care though.

Kant 6 Asher 0

It doesn't matter. When I cease to exist, I'm gone. This is the "truly logical" argument. You gain more out of not having kids, making lots of money, and investing it early. This is the "truly logical argument".

You might, but the question is not, "what is best for you, but what is best for society as a whole."

The problem is the kids are so expensive for so long you will mathematically never make that money back even when they start making good money themselves, and that's assuming they'll fork over all your cash to you as well. Face it: kids are bad financial choices. They're not a "truly logical" thing to have.

Logically, homosexuality is a dead end. It's great if you are young for about 10-15 years, but after that it's horrible.

The family of kids is going to be gaining on you every single year after you get past 15 years. Then end is going to be you all alone, and the family with kids and grandkids.

Long term, society derives a benefit from kids far greater then from homosexuality.

Precisely, so why the **** do I care about having kids? That's not logical.

In the long run, kids are by far the best investment.

Then you started talking about morality, like that's some kind of logical entity.

And you think that rebuttal is in anyway creative? This is why you suck at philosophy, because you fall into traps that have been left there.

[MrFun]

So far, you haven't given a satisfactory answer as to how equal marriage protection for gays and lesbians (ten percent of population) will end reproduction among straight people, BK.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm glad you managed to absorb the thrust of my argument unlike your companions.

How could the rest of you let an innuendo this precious slide?

[Elok]

Originally posted by MrFun
So far, you haven't given a satisfactory answer as to how equal marriage protection for gays and lesbians (ten percent of population) will end reproduction among straight people, BK.

Well, it's like Asher said, it's more logical to be queer and have double-income-no-kids. I was going to marry my GF, but if the possibility comes up that I could bone some dude and still get hospital visitation rights, well, I might have to reconsider.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok


Well, it's like Asher said, it's more logical to be queer and have double-income-no-kids. I was going to marry my GF, but if the possibility comes up that I could bone some dude and still get hospital visitation rights, well, I might have to reconsider.

[DRoseDARs]

In tangentially related news, one of my Mormon co-workers told me tonight she's 9 weeks pregnant. Out of wedlock. The father - also Mormon - is going to stay, but still sounds like a shotgun wedding setup.

[MrFun]

Although BK has not given a satisfactory answer as to how ten percent of population will prevent the other ninety percent of population from reproducing, I do not want him to forget my other point:

Granting civil right to marry to gays and lesbians will NOT compel churches to marry gay and lesbian couples. Those couples can go to churches that would be willing to marry them, or they can go to a secular office for such a ceremony.

And in case he missed this, I would ensure that whatever we teach in school to young children about gays and lesbians would be age appropriate.