Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[MOBIUS]

I totally understand what you are saying.

But I'm not ok with ceding them the term. What right do they have to it... the answer is NONE!
If they don't like it, they should be the ones to adopt some new phrase (I kind of like religious union, that would stick in their throats)... not everybody else.
Again, I respect their right to not have to perform marriages they don't agree with. But I'm against their desire to cram their beliefs down other people's throat.

Is Ming admitting he's an Atheist - and therefore deserving far more respect than I've ever given him before...!?

[Imran Siddiqui]

LOLz

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/for_gay_couple_fulfilling?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

NEW YORK—Having their sworn commitment to each other and all related rights therein recognized by the highest court of a sovereign U.S. state is ultimately not worth the hassle of moving to Iowa, longtime partners Danny Mindlin and Alex Small determined Monday. "Alex and I want to grow old together, but we'd have to drive six hours just to get a mezzaluna at Restoration Hardware," said Mindlin, who claimed he "couldn't survive" without a strawberry frosted cupcake from Amy's Bread after yoga every Thursday. "And where would we summer? Dubuque? I think we'll just buy a townhouse and live in an unrecognized union with beautiful granite countertops instead." The couple told reporters that their plans to adopt also weighed heavily in the decision, since they want to raise a child who is healthy, balanced, and "not tacky."

MrFun FTL!

[EPW]

mellifluous

[Ben Kenobi]

I challenged the assertion that marriage has always been a religious institution.

It has been a religious institution, at least in Christianity and Judaism for over 4000 years.

There are clearly periods in history that marriage has been secular, i.e., not part of a religious institution.

Which periods are you talking about, and where? In some way shape or form, it has been religious at least for 4000 years.

Marriage may always have been part of religion (and that's questionable), but religion hasn't always been part of marriage.

Well I'd like you to clarify which societies you are speaking about.

[Ben Kenobi]

a) Don't capitalize non-proper nouns. It makes you look even more retarded than you are

So the physics major finds the time to criticise punctuation over making substantive arguments.

b) Per-capita GDP growth in Europe in the second half of the 20th century has been FASTER than growth AT ANY OTHER TIME in Europe.

Yes, but their overall productivity has lagged. This is a function of GDP per capita multiplied by the population. Population growth has been nil for 30 years.

The rest of the world got to free-ride off of Western technical, economic, social and political knowledge.

So why doesn't the west continue on with innovation? We've stagnated.

NO country gets 10% growth per year, year after year like China's been getting without aid like this. GREAT. I'm ALL in favour of EVERYBODY being rich. Unlike you, I'm not so horrible a person as to wish that other people languish in poverty so that I'm richer in comparison.

I wouldn't have taken you for a communist. If everyone is rich, then everyone is poor.

Far as I'm concerned, if Western Europe believes that social liberalism is their saviour, I'd rather throw my lot in with the other folks. I'd prefer that Western Europe continue to be the vanguard of technological progress, but if they hate themselves so much that they don't want that burden, then by all means.

Secondly, look at the GDP growth in the rest of the world. Just because America is the richest nation, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world cannot also be rich too. Economics is not a zero sum game.

The fact that you've actually made this assertion is all ANY random observer of this conversation would need to diagnose you as either terminally stupid or pathologically disingenuous.

Perhaps you might want to rebut the statement rather then handwaving.

Nope. What we've seen is a Europe (and NA) that continue to grow at a pace unmatched in human history except for underdeveloped nations which leverage the knowledge and capital of more developed nations to lift themselves up.

So you don't see it as a concern, that Western Europe is declining?

See above. How retarded can you get? Do you really expect that a continent occupying perhaps 5-10% of the arable land on the planet would continue to reign supreme?

That is the legacy which had been left to us by our great-grandparents.

How the **** would THAT happen unless Europe deliberately stomped on less developed nations before they had a chance to emulate the European example?

Hard work and effort. Was the entire industrial revolution due to the exploitation of other people? I think Europe had some unique advantages wrt to innovation, that they have ceded, and stagnated.

Europe as a region has a more proficient military than ANYBODY other than the US currently. They would stomp the **** out of any other individual country.

Better then Japan, China and India? I don't think so.

They can't even manage against the Afghans.

[Ben Kenobi]

What the **** makes you think that something changed in the West rather than something changing in the East?

From 1950 to 1973, Europe kept pace.

From 1973 onwards, Europe has steadily declined. I think there have been significant demographic changes that occurred after 1973 which are primarily responsible for the decline in relative output of Western Europe. Output is a function of both population and productivity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't touch Orthodox Christianity with your heretical Catholic fingers, Ben.

Small o, which is my bad.

Also, care to name any other Western innovations that had disastrous outcomes?

This current fascination with environmentalism is a train wreck in motion. No-fault divorce is another. Abortion is another. Marxism has been a splendidly successful doctrine in every nation that has adopted it. Gay marriage is just one of a long chain of social liberal experiments which have greatly weakened western civilization.

[Ben Kenobi]

But I'm not ok with ceding them the term. What right do they have to it... the answer is NONE!

What right does civil marriage have to use the term marriage? Did they coin the term?

If they don't like it, they should be the ones to adopt some new phrase (I kind of like religious union, that would stick in their throats)... not everybody else.

What are your thoughts about holy matrimony, which is the real name for the sacrament.

But I'm against their desire to cram their beliefs down other people's throat.

That's ok. Religious people shouldn't cram their beliefs about love down other people's throat either. Especially loving your neighbour.

It's been my experience that those that complain loudest about Christians, are the first to ask them to do things. It's ok if you have soup kitchens, heaven forbid you should actually preach the bible too.

[Ben Kenobi]

In defense of colonialism. It was a horrific burden, shouldered by the white man.

True. Is democracy an eastern invention?

[Ben Kenobi]

But since we're a Christian nation, and the Bible says that women aren't equal to men, clearly it just means that men are all equal, and should be able to marry anyone they want.

Where does the bible say this? The bible says that each woman should have her own husband and each husband his own wife.

Opposite marriage would have one equal person and one less equal person.
Same-sex marriage would really be a marriage of equals.

Shades of Harrison Bergeron. What's next, making everyone wear goggles that make them blind? Equality doesn't mean sameness. You can be equal in value and complementary in abilities. If you insist that everyone has to function in the exact same way in order to be truly equal, that is a horrifying philosophy.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, but their overall productivity has lagged. This is a function of GDP per capita multiplied by the population. Population growth has been nil for 30 years.

a) Productivity is a measure of production intensity. Please use the right words. They're defined quite specifically for a reason

b) Raising children is an expensive proposition in a modern society. They must be educated and cared for often into their early 20s. No **** the population leveled off. And it will in the rest of the world too (it already is, by the way; fertility rates are DOWN across the board in the last couple of decades). The initial population spurt comes when clean water and adequate food start reaching most people for the first time in history. Same as happened in Europe in the 18th-19th century.

So why doesn't the west continue on with innovation? We've stagnated.

No, we've INCREASED the pace of innovation. We're growing FASTER than ever before. But it's quicker and cheaper to use OTHER people's ideas than it is to come up with new ones. As China, India et al catch up to us their growth will slow. Why the **** do you think Japan and SK's growth has slowed? They caught up. No cheap innovations left. We're all working at the same level now.

I wouldn't have taken you for a communist. If everyone is rich, then everyone is poor.

This is possibly the most DESPICABLE thing I've ever heard you say.

Wealth is not SOLELY a positional good. In fact those who value wealth mostly for its positional value are repugnant to me. You're a repellant human being and possibly the worst Christian I've ever had the misfortune to talk to.



The Chinese were starving by the tens of millions only 40 years ago. You're going to tell me that I should wish they had continued to do so because then I'd feel better about my lot in life?

I literally hate you.

Secondly, look at the GDP growth in the rest of the world. Just because America is the richest nation, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world cannot also be rich too. Economics is not a zero sum game.

And now I think you're simply retarded. What the **** do these two statements mean in conjunction with each other? Anybody?

Perhaps you might want to rebut the statement rather then handwaving.

So you don't see it as a concern, that Western Europe is declining?

God thing that's not happening. ****.

That is the legacy which had been left to us by our great-grandparents.

No, the legacy left to us was to be rich. Which we are. Other people have also used the ideas of our great grandparents, and grandparents and parents to better their own lot in life. Unlike you, I'm happy when other people do well.

Ideas are at their best when shared with all.

Hard work and effort. Was the entire industrial revolution due to the exploitation of other people? I think Europe had some unique advantages wrt to innovation, that they have ceded, and stagnated.

Hard work and effort? What the **** have I been saying to you? EUROPE HAS GROWN FASTER IN THIS CENTURY THAN IN THE PREVIOUS ONE, OR IN THE ONE BEFORE THAT. You are seriously ****ing retarded. You've now demonstrated that you have as little grasp of history as you do of general relativity.

Better then Japan, China and India? I don't think so.

Japan, China and India? Three regional rivals?



Europe is at peace and has been so for more than half a century. Its people are richer now than at any previous time in history. The same is true for North America. The rate of improvement of human welfare in these regions is FASTER than ever before. Now some of the other regions in the world have latched onto ideas that at their heart were born in Europe and have lifted themselves out of poverty.

And in the future they will (and already are, in the case of some of the more developed areas) contribute their own ideas and make us all better off.

[KrazyHorse]

from 1950 to 1973, europe kept pace.

from 1950 to 1973 europe was rebuilding from wwii you ****ing ****

[KrazyHorse]

That period is a PERFECT example of unsustainable growth caused by ideas and capital flowing in to a region with low starting capital.

[Ben Kenobi]

a) Productivity is a measure of production intensity. Please use the right words. They're defined quite specifically for a reason

Fine, gross output then. I was going to change that but wanted to reply to the other posts first.

b) Raising children is an expensive proposition in a modern society.

Society has a vested interest in lowering the cost if it wishes to survive.

And it will in the rest of the world too (it already is, by the way; fertility rates are DOWN across the board in the last couple of decades).

To a certain extent yes. All that will mean is that the same problems afflicting Europe will simply be worldwide, which is a not very appealing notion.

The initial population spurt comes when clean water and adequate food start reaching most people for the first time in history. Same as happened in Europe in the 18th-19th century.

Have you done any research in this? Worldwide fertility rates are already at about 2.4, which is a rate not see in the western world until the 1970s, again coinciding with those demographic changes I was talking about. True, the rest of the world is slightly higher, but not by that much, even if you exclude western europe.

No, we've INCREASED the pace of innovation.

The world of the 60's saw fit to launch an exploration of the moon, something which we've not replicated since. Where's all the space exploration we were supposed to have by now?

We're growing FASTER than ever before.

From 1900 sure, but not since the 1970s.

Why the **** do you think Japan and SK's growth has slowed?

Slowed, sure, but the west has declined.

Wealth is not SOLELY a positional good.

Where did I say it was? If everyone is equally rich, then everyone is equally poor. It is an economic fact.

In fact those who value wealth mostly for its positional value are repugnant to me.

I honestly don't give a fig about wealth, truth be told. But I don't believe that society would be better off if everyone were equally rich, and equally poor.

You're a repellant human being and possibly the worst Christian I've ever had the misfortune to talk to.

A compliment coming from a communist who believes in wealth redistribution. I'd be concerned if you liked me.

The Chinese were starving by the tens of millions only 40 years ago. You're going to tell me that I should wish they had continued to do so because then I'd feel better about my lot in life

No. You, again are assuming that economics is a zero sum game. I don't see why the folks in China could not have the same standard of living they do now, while Europe maintained the same rate of growth they have had for centuries. That I see preferable to Europe stagnating.

God thing that's not happening. ****.

You need to read more Steyn. It is, and it was remarked way back in the early 20th century. It's not a new thesis.

No, the legacy left to us was to be rich. Which we are. Other people have also used the ideas of our great grandparents, and grandparents and parents to better their own lot in life. Unlike you, I'm happy when other people do well.

So am I. Why does that mean we should rest on our laurels?

Say you have person A and person B.

According to you, person A is rich, and person B is poor.

You would rather see Person A as making no money, while person B 'catches up'.

I would rather see Person A and person B both making more money.

End result, person B has the same amount of money. Person A has more money and therefore there is more wealth created in my scenario then in yours.

You are accusing me of saying that I want Person A and Person B to not make any money at all, which is wrong.

Ideas are at their best when shared with all.

Great, I have no problem with that. Why rest on your laurels.

Hard work and effort? What the **** have I been saying to you? EUROPE HAS GROWN FASTER IN THIS CENTURY THAN IN THE PREVIOUS ONE, OR IN THE ONE BEFORE THAT.

On an absolute basis, yes.

That's like saying you'd rather take 5 percent growth over 10 percent growth because you'd make more off the 5 now that you have more then you had previously.

Japan, China and India? Three regional rivals?

You seriously believe that your 'united states of europe' wet dream even has the resources to combat Russia?

When was the last time the united states of europe engaged successfully on the battlefield?

Europe is at peace and has been so for more than half a century. Its people are richer now than at any previous time in history.

Great.

The same is true for North America. The rate of improvement of human welfare in these regions is FASTER than ever before. Now some of the other regions in the world have latched onto ideas that at their heart were born in Europe and have lifted themselves out of poverty.

Great, so that means it's time to come up with new and better ideas.

And in the future they will (and already are, in the case of some of the more developed areas) contribute their own ideas and make us all better off.

While we do what? Sit and do nothing?

Going to be an interesting century, that's for sure. With this kind of attitude?

[Q Classic]

Where does the bible say this? The bible says that each woman should have her own husband and each husband his own wife.

It also says that wives should be obedient, but doesn't suggest that husbands should necessarily be.

But face it, women really are inferior. After all, if they weren't, then our Christian Founding Fathers, wise as they were, would have given them the vote.

Equality doesn't mean sameness. You can be equal in value and complementary in abilities. If you insist that everyone has to function in the exact same way in order to be truly equal, that is a horrifying philosophy.

Nice strawman. No, really. It's like you took my satirical argument at face value, and then ran with it.