Trolling Ben

[KrazyHorse]

I'm just that good.

[Q Classic]

Why does "partner" not suffice? It works a treat if the husband/wife doesn't wear a wedding ring, if they're single, or if you're not sure whether they're single or not. They'll tell you if they're single, and you won't have offended them if they're not.

For some reason, some straight people get weirded out if someone calls their spouse their "partner". Actually, my one girlfriend once thought it was weird when I mentioned how nice it would be to have a spouse, referring to her at the time.

And I don't see why it's odd if I should want a husband. On that same note, I wouldn't be weirded out if said potential husband called me his wife.

[Q Classic]

Break...break all the social conventions. Break marriage. Who cares about it. HAve kids. Don't pay child support. Rape.

We are all just atoms anyhow.

Actually, atoms are themselves composed of smaller particles. There's also the term "nuclear family", which lends itself to this: multiple different particles combining into a very difficult-to-separate core, with the extended family and friends skittering about like electrons.

[Naked Gents Rut]

For some reason, some straight people get weirded out if someone calls their spouse their "partner".

Calling your spouse your "partner" makes you sound gay.

Actually, my one girlfriend once thought it was weird when I mentioned how nice it would be to have a spouse, referring to her at the time.

Who says "spouse"? You say you want a "wife" or a "husband". I suppose spouse will become more common in the future, however, since you'll have to refer to a married person's spouse but won't always know from context whether the spouse is a husband or wife.

[Asher]

Asher: why don't you just convert to hetero.

1) Women are too *****y
2) Women are too emotional
3) Women bleed
4) Women are too moody
5) Women are too expensive
6) Women make less money than men
7) Women can get pregnant

[TCO]

They're sweet.

[Berzerker]

Why? What makes you so uncomfortable about the word?

here we go again

[FrostyBoy]

1) Women are too *****y
2) Women are too emotional
3) Women bleed
4) Women are too moody
5) Women are too expensive
6) Women make less money than men
7) Women can get pregnant

Um... those are your reasons? You're making it sound as if it was a choice to be gay.


1) Women have tits
2) Women look pretty
3) Women will cook for you
4) Women will care about you, even when you don't care about them
5) Women will iron your clothes
6) Women will entertain your guests while you play games
7) Women have tits

[Berzerker]

I am fine with constitutions overruling regular laws.

I don't agree with the reasoning of those who say that it should be legal for constitutional reasons.

It isn't an equal rights thing. There is no right to be married/etc in the constitution. Marriage is a set of benefits that the government grants as it sees fit. It doesn't grant it to polygamists. It doesn't grant it to some other situations. It hasn't granted it between two men/two women. It is perfectly within it's right to decide which things should receive the benefits, and which shouldn't. I think that it would be best for society for the government to grant those benefits to homosexuals who choose to marry their SOs.

I support gay marriage because I think it is best to have it. Not because it should be legal because of the constitution/etc.

JM

Marriage is not in the Constitution, as you say, therefore why are the married getting benefits? Doesn't that violate the equal protection clause? It aint the Feds business who marries whom, nor is it the Feds business to "encourage" or subsidize marriages.

[FrostyBoy]

Marriage is a stupid idea. It's a conformist idea, a religious idea, a women's idea. Therefore, stupid.

My uncle has never been married, he has a long-term girlfriend (something like 20+ years I think), they have 3 children, (all are theirs).

I vow never to get married.

[Asher]

I have a feeling that'll never be a problem for you.

[Jon Miller]

Marriage supports society, so it is definitely something that the government is in place to encourage.

Members who are married statistically live longer, happier, healthier, and more productive lives. They raise children which are more likely to succeed (for various reasons), which provide for the future success of the nation. And they are more stable, which also a good thing as far as the nation is concerned. The argument for homosexual marriage is that the losses caused by people engaging in homosexual marriage who would otherwise engage in heterosexual marriage (Which is probably just a small loss in children production, obviously I think homosexuals should be able to adopt as well) will be offset by the people who won't engage in any hetero marriage, but would engage in a homosexual one.

I don't give a **** about sticking only to the constitution. I was just saying that 'equal' rights isn't a relevant reason to argue that homosexuality should be legal. Don't say that the constitution gives the right, it doesn't.

My understanding is that Loving Vs Whoever was still a man and a woman? If so, it has nothing to do male/male marriage or female/female marriage/etc. We are expanding the definition here... Which is OK. But be honest. We are only interested in expanding the definition so long as it serves the state interest. Expanding the definition (as some have argued, here as well) to be basically some contract is stupid and not in the states interest (And so the state shouldn't provide benefits to polygamous/etc marriages).

JM

[Theben]

1) Women are too *****y
2) Women are too emotional
3) Women bleed
4) Women are too moody
5) Women are too expensive
6) Women make less money than men
7) Women can get pregnant

Except for #7, these apply to gay men too.

[DinoDoc]

When can we start working on Mormon rights and legalizing "Big Love"?

[KrazyHorse]

here we go again

It's sweet of you to follow me around.