Hello everybody

[joncha]

Why are folks arguing with our resident bigot and expecting him to say rational things?

Why do you expect rational expectations from folks arguing in the OT?

[Elok]

Have you all considered putting BK on ignore and then, every time he posts, trying to guess what he said and replying to that instead of the real thing? It'll still be stupid and pointless, but it might be kinda fun.

[Arabia (DoB)]

Welkom

[Ben Kenobi]

You will never experience the touch of a woman.

What is Michael Jackson's epitaph?

[Ben Kenobi]

I know several gay couples with children.

Any with children from their partner?

You seem unclear about the concept that sex produces babies.

[Ben Kenobi]

And yes many people get married without any intention of having children and some that can't. Yet they can marry so your logic FAILS again. I guess I shouldn't say that since you haven't demonstrated any logic at all. I don't know why I keep expecting you to.

So logically because sex produces babies, the connection between marriage and sex is illogical? Is there another way to produce children other than through sex? It would seem to me that society has a vested interest in encouraging activities that produce children.

[Ben Kenobi]

So the state should only allow marriages between couples that are capable of conceiving a child?

Does the state test for fertility? No?

Is there another way to produce children other than through sex? Also no?

I guess then the state still has an interest in encouraging marriage as a way to produce children, irrespective as to whether everyone who gets married has children.

That is not the status quo. If for some reason a woman is infertile then by your reasoning her relationship with a man is equivalent to a homosexual relationship.

No, because the union is not the same. The union is a crucial part of marriage. Anything outside of that union is not marriage.

Not allowing multiple marriages at once is not the same as not allowing a minority group the ability to get married at all.

If marriage is about self-actualization, why shouldn't we permit people to marry more than once at the same time?

[giblets]

Does the state test for fertility? No?

Is there another way to produce children other than through sex? Also no?

I guess then the state still has an interest in encouraging marriage as a way to produce children, irrespective as to whether everyone who gets married has children.

Does the state have an interest in excluding people who cannot produce children? If not, what is the point in excluding homosexuals? You only want it because you hate homosexuals.

No, because the union is not the same. The union is a crucial part of marriage. Anything outside of that union is not marriage.

So, erm, your argument against legalizing same-sex marriage is "they don't have sex the same way"? I think you're just being arbitrary.

If marriage is about self-actualization, why shouldn't we permit people to marry more than once at the same time?

I have no idea what self-actualization is. Marriage is about love. Nothing says "I love you" like "I want to sleep with a different woman tomorrow night".

[Jon Miller]

I do think that BK is a bigot, but not particularly from this thread so far.

What BK has directly showed in this thread is 'conservatism', which is 'common' if not 'rational'.

Some of the issue is that people here know BK is a bigot, and respond to him as such.

Is this thread what people want?

JM

[Zevico]

Does the state have an interest in excluding people who cannot produce children?

Good question. It is possible to advert to the possibility that the cost of such methods might exceed their benefits.

But that, of course, begs the question--what are the "benefits" of marriage to society, in the strict legal sense? Do these benefits exist independently of marriage as a legal institution? Are they a product of social codes and mores rather than legal rules? In other words, how, and which of the legal (as opposed to social) rules concerning marriage actually benefit society? That's what I'd like to discuss. If we know how specific laws about marriage benefit society then this discussion can actually be productive. The mantra "marriage is between a man and a woman" or that "marriage is about the children" does not explain how the legal rules concerning marriage actually help children. I completely agree that a stable home with two committed parents is an excellent child-bearing environment, but I do not see how our society's marriage laws encourage or discourage the existence of this environment. Nor do I see how see why those parents must be of different sexes provided that adoption is an option that is open to them. Are same-sex couples worse at raising children than different-sex couples? Are same-sex couples worse than single parents at raising couples? Even if they are, will applying the legal rules of marriage to them better their situation or not?

If not, what is the point in excluding homosexuals? You only want it because you hate homosexuals.

That's called projection. You don't know why he wants it, you're just playing a guessing game.

I have no idea what self-actualization is.

Yes, that's part of the problem. You've just conceded you don't know what he's talking about. In light of the same, perhaps you should stop trying to put words in his mouth about hating gays and just let him explain his position. By opining on what he "really thinks" by accusing him of hating gays without even understanding what he's talking about, you're basically engaging in your daily 2 minutes of hate rather than in a civil discussion.

[giblets]

Zevico, I personally find your posts to be very bland (but maybe to others they're interesting, who knows, I'm only expressing a personal preference and not an insult) and I don't really feel like having a discussion with you about whether same sex couples should be given an inferior status by the state to appease some bigots and people who think "it's the way things have always been done" is a good reason to do something.

[Zevico]

I don't really feel like having a discussion with you about whether same sex couples should be given an inferior status by the state to appease some bigots and people who think "it's the way things have always been done" is a good reason to do something.

You really are quite confused. Who suggested that appeasing bigots is a good reason for a law? Who suggested that "it's the way things have always been done" is the only way to do things? You're simply assuming that these are the arguments in favour of gay marriage, but no one's ever offered them as such. These are strawmen, not arguments.

Earlier in this thread you admitted you had no idea what Ben's position was and, earlier than that, you called him a hater. How can these two opinions stand together? If you have no idea what he's on about then why do you deign to tell him what he thinks?

[Kidlicious]

I do think that BK is a bigot, but not particularly from this thread so far.

What BK has directly showed in this thread is 'conservatism', which is 'common' if not 'rational'.

Some of the issue is that people here know BK is a bigot, and respond to him as such.

Is this thread what people want?

JM

There's tons wrong with this post, but just to name one, you seem to think that you are never a bigot.

[molly bloom]

What is Michael Jackson's epitaph?

Sha-mone, mo'f*cker !!


No ?

[Zevico]

edit: nevermind,