Trolling Ben

[Q Classic]

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.

I say spouse. *shrugs* It's suitably non-gendered, so I don't see what the problem is?

[Asher]

Actually, the reason behind that is more likely due to a pervasive sexism in haute cuisine, rather than intellectual or creative facility.

No, it's because women can't cook.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It's suitably non-gendered, so I don't see what the problem is?

It's unnecessary and therefore sounds odd because no one else uses it.

[DinoDoc]

If he watched "Big Love" he'd see why polygamy is a bad idea.

But I don't think DinoDoc gets cable.

Your arguement against the concept seems to boil down to the fact that you seem to find it icky. I'm wondering what seperates you from Ben when he talks about gay marriage

[Asher]

It's suitably non-gendered, so I don't see what the problem is?

It's unnecessary and therefore sounds odd because no one else uses it.

I hear it all the time -- "We're meeting for drinks at ___________ tonight after work, bring your spouses" kind of thing.

[Asher]

Your arguement against the concept seems to boil down to the fact that you seem to find it icky.

I don't find it "icky" at all, nor did I ever imply it.

My problem with polygamy is a far deeper problem, one that Big Love does a good job at portraying without necessarily vilifying it. A polygamous marriage can sometimes be truly consensual, but more often than not it's more indicative of Stockholm Syndrome than love and the women (and it's almost always the women that are the plural parties) that become victims of the arrangement.

Further still to the difference between me and Ben -- it's my argument that the government has no business at all regulating marriage. It's big government to have them involved at all. If people want to get married, go for it, but the government should not have any role in it at all. If a church wants to refuse to marry a gay couple, they should have that right. Again, to force them to do otherwise is big government.

Barring the government getting out of the marriage business, the next best option is to ensure both homosexual and heterosexuals are treated fairly by the public government. It's not a Christian government, remember.

The problem with you republicans is you believe in Big Government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

So gay people should be allowed to get married, because they will live longer, happier, healthier, and more productive lives, as well as raise children (adopted or through in vitro) which are more likely to succeed.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I hear it all the time -- "We're meeting for drinks at ___________ tonight after work, bring your spouses" kind of thing.

That really only makes sense if you're addressing a group containing both men and women. I would never ask some dude in one-on-one conversation "How's your spouse?" or "What does your spouse does for a living" or "Where's your spouse from?". That just sounds weird. I wouldn't say "I need to find a spouse", either.

[DinoDoc]

...that become victims of the arrangement.

That's not a real arguement either, Asher. Gay relationships can be abusive as well. Is that a valid reason to ban you from marrying your chosen mate?

Further still to the difference between me and Ben -- it's my argument that the government has no business at all regulating marriage.

Actually it does unless you'd like to take the government out of regulating contracts (which marriage is) altogether. Which would only create more problems than it solves IMO.

The problem with you republicans is you believe in Big Government.

The problem with you liberals is that your just stupid and fail to actually think things through.

[SlowwHand]

I hear it all the time -- "We're meeting for drinks at ___________ tonight after work, bring your spouses" kind of thing.

That really only makes sense if you're addressing a group containing both men and women. I would never ask some dude in one-on-one conversation "How's your spouse?" or "What does your spouse does for a living" or "Where's your spouse from?". That just sounds weird. I wouldn't say "I need to find a spouse", either.

From what I understand, your approach is "I need to find a woman that will **** like a banshee". Is that right?

[Jon Miller]

So gay people should be allowed to get married, because they will live longer, happier, healthier, and more productive lives, as well as raise children (adopted or through in vitro) which are more likely to succeed.

Yep, that is why I am in favor of the legislative legalizing gay marriage.

JM

[Asher]

That's not a real arguement either, Asher. Gay relationships can be abusive as well. Is that a valid reason to ban you from marrying your chosen mate?

There's nothing inherently abusive about a 1:1 relationship. When you have a 1:many relationship, the odds of abuse (not physical, necessarily) are astronomical.

Your argument is the one that's not real. The argument is not gay marriage vs polygamy, it's monogamy vs polygamy. Do you agree that polygamist marriages are far more likely to infringe on the liberties and rights of women?

If you don't, then do some research -- because they do. If you do, then your argument is invalid.

Actually it does unless you'd like to take the government out of regulating contracts (which marriage is) altogether. Which would only create more problems than it solves IMO.The problem with you liberals is that your just stupid and fail to actually think things through.

How can you even say that after this epicly retarded post?

If the government was just back to regulating CONTRACTS, rather than MARRIAGE specifically -- AS IT SHOULD -- this wouldn't be the problem. I've no problem with people signing civil union contracts with eachother that the government can then regulate. They sure as **** should not be giving out MARRIAGE contracts though, if MARRIAGE is indeed a religious construct as you insist it is.

So here's the problem with "not thinking it through". I'll break it down so easy, even a creationist can comprehend it:

The argument among the Christian right is that marriage is a Christian concept, or otherwise a religious concept. If that's the case, the government has no business in regulating it.

The problem with the religious republican right (the RRR, which is really a 21st century version of the KKK and will be shunned similarly by mainstream society in a few decades) is you DO believe in big, authoritarian government. What you believe cannot be logically or reasonably argued. But the lot of you are too stupid to realize it, so you try anyway and that's what creates these gems of threads where you and Ben say the most monumentally stupid things without ever having the the perception of reality.

[Jon Miller]

Back when I was in favor of multi-marriage (long time ago), I thought that it should be between muliple boys and girls... in order to be equitable*. A relationship with 3 straight people is always going to have one person spliting there love between two people, and the two people giving all their love to one person.

*probably everyone would be Bi too.

JM

[DinoDoc]

Do you agree that polygamist marriages are far more likely to infringe on the liberties and rights of women?

I wasn't aware that I was required to make your arguement for you. Perhaps you'd care to provide the research you say exists while at the same time explaining why an arrangement practiced the world over (and not always with man and multiple wives) should be denied the same equal rights you are seeking for yourself.

I've no problem with people signing civil union contracts with eachother that the government can then regulate. They sure as **** should not be giving out MARRIAGE contracts though, if MARRIAGE is indeed a religious construct as you insist it is.

Given the fact that I've insisted no such thing, I fail to see the point of this histrionic outburst. Perhaps you should be a little less womanly (*****y and emotional to borrow from you) about the matter and actually read what people write.

If that's the case, the government has no business in regulating it.

It's a civil contract, so why doesn't the government have any business in regulating it?

[-Jrabbit]

Actually, the reason behind that is more likely due to a pervasive sexism in haute cuisine, rather than intellectual or creative facility.

Interestingly, one of the top chefs in the world, Cat Cora, is female.
And gay.