I've come to a conclusion that I'm against gay marriage.

[giblets]

How did you manage to get a 'k' in there? It's not next to 'g' or 'r' on the keyboard...

[Wiglaf]

Did you MODIFY YOUR KEYBOARD? ON A NORMAL US ENGLISH - QWERTY KEYBOARD ITS TWO LETTERS OVER FROM G, to the RIGHT

[giblets]

Did you MODIFY YOUR KEYBOARD? ON A NORMAL US ENGLISH - QWERTY KEYBOARD ITS TWO LETTERS OVER FROM G, to the RIGHT

Okay. I'm looking at G. I go one to the right. Now I'm at H. I go another to the right. Now I'm two to the right, and I'm at J. J and K are different letters. You kacjass.

[Aeson]

Arguing against frequently naming new rights is very different from arguing that new ideas are never worthwhile, which is what you seemed to think I was saying.

No. reg was arguing that new ideas can't be rights as I noted when you claimed no one was. You were simply saying that the value of rights are diminished if we add to many other rights. This is not the case, as the value of rights are inherent to themselves. You said you aren't disagreeing with me about this, but that is in contradiction to your actual statements where you were.

The bottom line is people like you and gkribbler and Asher throw around the term like "right" very casually.

I don't think government should be involved in marriage at all. I don't view government observation of marriage as a right even for straight people. You're the one who wants to support the status quo of government dishing out these rights all willy nilly to straight people just so you can deny the same rights to gays

... I hope you will be man enough to apologize for the financial mess your type of entitlement (and punitive) mentality has made of our finances as a country ...

[Asher]

you responded to ben offending you by making comments about ben's dead father. you're just playing his game here. be the bigger man.

Ben brought his dead father into this. I didn't insult his dead father, I made the observation that Ben is a piece of **** that we know to be hated by his family. It's a slight on Ben, not his dead father.

If Ben doesn't want his dead father to be involved in discussions, he should perhaps stop bringing him up and using him as a centrepiece for his argument.

PS: Ben is the smaller man in every way, and I don't need to prove that.

[Asher]

A lot of deviations do not have victims. Some people are genuinely and irresistibly sexually attracted to inanimate objects. Should we permit people to marry their stuffed animals? Why not? Why is their mental health not important to you?

The reality is that your argument just has no end point. You can forever claim almost everyone with a mental or sexual deviation is being discriminated against by the government.

The argument certainly does have an end.

Coupling -> benefits for the individual AND the society.

The genitals of the couples plays no role in that.

In nature and in society, a couple is more successful in life. The reason the government "subsidizes" marriage is because they know that.

The relationships between a man and a woman in love and a man in and man in love are the same. The relationship of a man with a pig or a man with six wives or a man with an inflatable doll are not.

Anyone in this thread who will begin to bring out the slippery slope argument any more will be forever banished from the realm of intelligence. I've never once seen a logical argument against gay marriage. These arguments either resort to authority (THE BIBLE SEZ!!!!), ignorance (PEDOPHILES MARRY? NO!!!), are predicated in the wording of a centuries old document (TEH CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION TEH HOMOSEXES), or are simple fallacies (if teh gays marry, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO MARRY A PITCHFORK).

Where are the intellectual heavyweights here with a clue arguing against gay marriage as a concept? They don't exist.

All we have are simpletons and bigots.

[notyoueither]

Don't think I lose sleep at night over gay marriage.

I don't have a problem with equal rights for gay people. I have a problem with us taking certain things and declaring them rights when they aren't. Concepts that never existed even 50 years ago can't be rights. You have no right to own a computer. You have no right to internet access. You have a right to have some religious ceremony declaring you married to whatever the hell you want, your dog, your favorite car, whatever. The government doesn't have to give you tax benefits. Depriving you of those tax benefits doesn't really hurt your well being too much, either.

Whether the government should do this or not is a separate question, and it's not one I care enough about right now to discuss. But the whole "it's a right" argument is annoying.

Your governments do have to give you equal protection before the law.

It is in your Constitution.

Why do you make the founding fathers cry?

[notyoueither]

Ben shows no empathy or sympathy for anyone else, and even goes a step further by belittling them and their situations.

More people should treat Ben to his own medicine.

From what his brother said, his own family hates Ben and Ben has used them to get to Texas.

I'd have paid to see him gone, gleefully. Good investment assuming the risk of return were low enough.

[notyoueither]

asher, i can understand why you're angry with ben, but that really is over the line.

Not really. Not given the background and the posts in this thread.

The moron is equating being seperated by geography and circumstance from a dying partner with being denied access no matter what.

[notyoueither]

A lot of deviations do not have victims. Some people are genuinely and irresistibly sexually attracted to inanimate objects. Should we permit people to marry their stuffed animals? Why not? Why is their mental health not important to you?

The reality is that your argument just has no end point. You can forever claim almost everyone with a mental or sexual deviation is being discriminated against by the government.

When informed, adult consent is a requirement, we can probably rule out inanimate objects. Yes?

[dannubis]

No, clearly what you want is a special 'gay badge', that lets you get to see your partner and puts you to the front of the line, ahead of family, etc. Special rights, not equal rights.

Where his goddamn rightfull place is, you piece of ****.

[Wiglaf]

The argument certainly does have an end.

Coupling -> benefits for the individual AND the society.

The genitals of the couples plays no role in that.

In nature and in society, a couple is more successful in life. The reason the government "subsidizes" marriage is because they know that.

The relationships between a man and a woman in love and a man in and man in love are the same. The relationship of a man with a pig or a man with six wives or a man with an inflatable doll are not.

Anyone in this thread who will begin to bring out the slippery slope argument any more will be forever banished from the realm of intelligence. I've never once seen a logical argument against gay marriage. These arguments either resort to authority (THE BIBLE SEZ!!!!), ignorance (PEDOPHILES MARRY? NO!!!), are predicated in the wording of a centuries old document (TEH CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION TEH HOMOSEXES), or are simple fallacies (if teh gays marry, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO MARRY A PITCHFORK).

Where are the intellectual heavyweights here with a clue arguing against gay marriage as a concept? They don't exist.

All we have are simpletons and bigots.

I'm confused. Am I a bigot for thinking it's repulsive and unnatural for a man to stick his penis in another man's anus, or for not wanting to fund that behavior? I assume you mean the latter. If I have to fund things I find completely vile, on what basis would I refuse funding to anything?

Marriage isn't subsidized to encourage coupling. Anyone can and will couple if they want to. It's mostly to encourage child rearing, a very historic and very expensive function of marriage.

[Kidlicious]

Marriage isn't subsidized to encourage coupling. Anyone can and will couple if they want to. It's mostly to encourage child rearing, a very historic and very expensive function of marriage.

It's subsidized because a bunch of married people voted for some politicians.

[Kidlicious]

"**** happens" does not describe systematic laws and policies to ensure "**** always happens".

Your father is ****ing lucky he died without having to look at your face.

So you don't feel bad about saying this, but you are calling HIM a psychopath?

[dannubis]

1. Asher knows how many kids he put in this world so maybe he doesn't need little chicken ****s like yourself telling him what his morals should be
2. What asher said actually is not sociopathic in any way. Tell me how Asher insulted ben's father without warping reality.