@North Carolina

Xeoni · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 5:23 pm

Okay, I'm done quoting Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, I promise.

Mns · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 5:48 pm

Usdk wrote:

Because we are rounding up the gays and putting them in concentration camps huh?

No, you're only denying them the right to marry and all of the perks of it, such as having custody of children or power of attorney if something bad happens to the person they planned on spending the rest of their lives with.

Battletard · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 6:24 pm

This does hit close to home because I have been in the same relationship for 5 and a half years now. I'm not sure how common law marriage rules apply, but I know this new law affects a lot more people than gays. Additionally, we have twin boys and I really see no reason why it's a problem for unmarried couples and parents to have the same privileges as married people. I am on board with civil union benefits being available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, including platonically to room mates who are heterosexual but have had the same living arrangements for X amount of time.

Marriages should be left to the churches. There are quite a lot of religious institutions that recognize marriages between man/man, man/woman and woman/woman. Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, etc.

The government really is overstepping its bounds here.

Aestu · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 8:42 pm

Mns wrote:

No, you're only denying them the right to marry and all of the perks of it, such as having custody of children or power of attorney if something bad happens to the person they planned on spending the rest of their lives with.

Nope, because none of those benefits are exclusive to it.

The only exclusives of marriage are unequivocal liabilities.

Aestu · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 8:48 pm

Battletard wrote:

Marriages should be left to the churches. There are quite a lot of religious institutions that recognize marriages between man/man, man/woman and woman/woman.

This does not work because marriage is a social institution not a religious one.

The proof that arguments to the contrary are malarkey is that this debate is driven by the aggressive demands of the non-religious. If marriage is non-religious then why do they care?

And I explained in great detail why marriage is fundamentally heterosexual for reasons that have nothing to do with religious dogma.

The "benefits of marriage" bit, implying their goals are entirely economic, is a red herring. We've demonstrated this; power of attorney and power to adopt and inherit are not exclusive to marriage.

This entire debate is between two groups of equally perverse people who want validation for their respective lifestyles.

Battletard · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 9:35 pm

Aestu wrote:

Battletard wrote:

Marriages should be left to the churches. There are quite a lot of religious institutions that recognize marriages between man/man, man/woman and woman/woman.

This does not work because marriage is a social institution not a religious one.

The proof that arguments to the contrary are malarkey is that this debate is driven by the aggressive demands of the non-religious. If marriage is non-religious then why do they care?

And I explained in great detail why marriage is fundamentally heterosexual for reasons that have nothing to do with religious dogma.

The "benefits of marriage" bit, implying their goals are entirely economic, is a red herring. We've demonstrated this; power of attorney and power to adopt and inherit are not exclusive to marriage.

This entire debate is between two groups of equally perverse people who want validation for their respective lifestyles.

k ur rite sry

Aestu · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 12:09 am

Never let nasty annoying little things like facts and logic stand in the way of adherence to ideological platitudes, whether it's "free market" ideology or gender nihilism.

If you encounter irrefutable facts and unassailable logic standing between you and acceptance of pop media as the answer to all questions, just remind yourself that there isn't any difference between ignorance and its alternatives.

Be content with one's small and provably wrong views, and hate anyone who interrupts one's hedonistic withdrawl from the unpleasant feelings associated with a change of mind.

EDIT: Regarding that JPEG, Colbert (or whoever) makes a snarky response, but what is the flaw in the logic? Are people really going to tell me they don't get their views from TV and that kind of superficial blather? Because whenever I ask "where do you get your views?" no one ever articulates anything else.

Usdk · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 12:31 am

Mns wrote:

Usdk wrote:

Because we are rounding up the gays and putting them in concentration camps huh?

No, you're only denying them the right to marry and all of the perks of it, such as having custody of children or power of attorney if something bad happens to the person they planned on spending the rest of their lives with.

Hey dont point the finger at me, or did you miss the entire other half of that post you quoted?

Battletard · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 11:06 am

Well, it must be really convenient to be able to decide on everyone's behalf what qualifies as 'facts' and 'logic'.

Mns · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 1:03 pm

Battletard wrote:

The government really is overstepping its bounds here.

Let's not forget that they're overstepping their bounds because of social conservatives legislating their morality on everyone else!

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 1:21 pm

...or that "the government overstepping its bounds" is generally excused on this forum so long as some of you agree with how they're doing it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 2:32 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

...or that "the government overstepping its bounds" is generally excused on this forum so long as some of you agree with how they're doing it.

This applies to you at least as much as to anyone.

I'm curious, how do you reconcile my typical very assertive vision for government for my libertarian stance on this issue? What do you believe in my views as a whole drives the distinction I make on this particular issue?

Battletard wrote:

Well, it must be really convenient to be able to decide on everyone's behalf what qualifies as 'facts' and 'logic'.

Not at all. I volunteered more than my "saying so". No one else seems to have done that with this issue or most. The distinction is very objective.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

@North Carolina

Who is online