The Destruction of Straightness

[Eliseus]

Cool stories, again, no one gives a shit about your useless wrong info.

"Umad"

Raging boner mad.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cool stories, again, no one gives a shit about your useless wrong info.

"Umad"

Raging boner mad.

great rebuttal, i'll have to use this one next time my new exceptions rebuttal doesn't work.

[Kagatobs]

The reason you are gay is because you cannot get the opposite sex to like you because your ugly. You should mutilate your genitals because you won't need them while not having sex with the opposite sex.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

great rebuttal, i'll have to use this one next time my new exceptions rebuttal doesn't work.

Thanks man, you can use it whenever. NP

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What's your point? Is a debate over project1999.org somehow more valid? The ideas and arguments presented within the article are at issue, how is that not a valid submission?

You're submitting it in an attempt to prove your position, but really it's just someones opinion. That person may be smart, but the work is obviously biased. I'm saying two things, which you're conflating as one out of sheer laziness. #1 the work you cited isn't a valid basis for persuasion if you're looking to change the mind of someone who doesn't value opnion. #2 whether or not the document explicitly calls to mind the fact that it is based in the the very narrow band of republican-american-judeo-christian moral values regarding marriage, has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is based in the the very narrow band of republican-american-judeo-christian moral values regarding marriage. Which it is. Obviously.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The arguments I have made are just as valid from a secular viewpoint as they are a religious one.

That is all well and good, but don't get mad when I call your "valid" arguments silly because they are based in the the very narrow band of republican-american-judeo-christian moral values regarding marriage.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just because the goals of the secular and the religious arguments align does not mean that each necessarily must follow from the other.

Nobody ever said that, but the end of those goals is that "a man and a woman" kind of relationship is MORE EQUAL than "a woman and a woman" kind of relationship. Regardless of if the text of your source follows from religion or not, it's bigotry.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dismissing something for sharing the same aspiration as something else is sleight of hand.

That is absolutely not why I am dismissing your source. If you look above I give a number of supports for the main reason, which is simply that it is bigoted.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yet, if I had asserted a point as "common knowledge" you'd be dropping [citation needed]. Wait a minute...

Don't put quotes around common knowledge like you don't know that it is jargon. I used it specifically out of the lay context.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No one, and certainly no Marriage law, deprives anyone of any actual right.

This is slight of hand. You're using the jargon form of right, and in that you're certainly true. Men and women also do not have a RIGHT to get married. However, providing tax incentives to one group of people and basing the validity of that on the judeo-christian standard of marriage is institutionalized bigotry, EVEN IF gay partnerships didn't provide the same benefit to society that marriages do, which they do.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Marriage is an institution which the law recognizes and regulates; the State does not create it.

This is a nonsense point. So is water. So is your driver's license. There is no law that says gay people can't have water or drive.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The "right to marry" is short hand for saying NOT that "I can do whatever I want and call it marriage," but rather a right to enter into this pre-existing institution. What is being proposed is to redefine the institution. Marriage enjoys a fundamental structure: Quantitative (2) and Qualitative (Male and Female): 2 and Male and Female. Under the guise of "civil rights" some are seeking to redefine that structure, which, some true civil rights issues such as miscegenation laws did not do. Miscegenation laws did violate civil rights because they wrongly restricted entry into the institution, an institution to which both sides accepted as a definitional matter; they did not redefine it as did polygamy (quantitative) does and as does same-sex marriage. (qualitative).

That sure is a lot of words you used to essentially say "I'm a bigot."

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Marriage is NOT a private act; it is a social act and therefore, the State DOES have an interest in the institution: channelling responsible procreative behavior.

I disagree that this is the reason for the states interest in marriage. I think it has much more to do with the fact that married people pay more taxes over time due to stability. This is incentive for the state to give tax breaks, since on the bottom line the state wins.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The State recognizes that neither the Mother nor the Father are irrelevant to children and also that it is bad policy to create fatherless and motherless environments, something the law has long seen as bad policy.

You literally just made that up.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All people have the right to marry, just as all people in the U.S. enjoy a host of other rights. Marriage as it is takes away nothing. All people possess the same right.

Actual marriage under social convention or under a deity or whatever is not the issue. Government benefits and spousal recognition / rights are the issues. I know that you know that, but good try trying to distract.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is polygamy also a civil rights issue?

Using polygamy is a rhetorical red herring because "love and sex relationships" is not what is at issue. The real question is should domestic partnerships include more than two people? IMHO they should. If more than two people want to make a contractual commitment to each other to help each other when needed etc so they do not become a burden on society, then yes, they should receive tax breaks because even with those breaks they end up paying more to the system over time than single people.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Group sex is not banned

This is ONLY because of the hard work of activists. There are probably actually still laws in place prohibiting this and / or other kinds of sex in the states. Your argument is dumb as fuck. lol.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

nor is living together as a group, but group marriage is. What does marriage add that is not already available to this group?

Commitment to each other.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Should this restriction be lifted as well in the name of civil rights?

Barring evidence to the contrary, absolutely.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Additionally, even if marriage were somehow discriminatory in it's "unequal application" current jurisprudence would likely approve of it for furthering a compelling state interest (See Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

I am not a lawyer, nor do I care to be one. Therefore I'm not going to "see" anything. If you can't explain something without cloaking it in this kind of subterfuge (unlinked sources that only a lawyer would be able to find, let alone understand), you probably don't understand what you're saying. I can attempt to answer to what I think is your point tho, in that the state has interest in committed couples in general, because of the reduced burden.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is not a strawman. It is an illustrative example. Consider: what is the GOAL of marriage that the government seeks to promote? It is not about love. It is about responsible child-rearing.

I completely disagree with that premise. I think it is much more about reducing the burden on the state. Independent analysis will confirm this.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You claim that "it takes a village to raise a child"

I did no such thing; I pointed out that other people say that. But, granting your point for the sake of argument:

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is an explicit recognition that the creation of children is a public act, thus the government has a valid purpose in the recognition of marriage.

You're equating marriage to children, which is hilarious and also very judeo-christian of you.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Friendship is not recognized because there is no goal to serve. It is a comparative example meant to tease out the distinction between marriage and friendship.

Yeah but nobody but YOU made that comparison. It's an idiot comparison. We're discussing domestic partnerships vs marriage, not friendships vs marriage. Straw man.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Once the distinction is visible (that marriage is about promoting a mother+father+child relationship), you can then see the exact reason marriage was recognized by governments.

The distinction is moot as I have shown. Marriage is NOT about promoting a mother/father/child relationship. It's about saving money to fund war. Look at how we spend money in this country and there you go. If the government gave ANY fucks about your children or your relationship with your children, maybe we'd give more than a penny on the dollar for education. But we don't, because we don't. Your hair is a bird.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can agree with this to an extent. How does this sound: all rights that stand between individuals such as (medical) power of attorney, certain inheritance rules, the assignment of benefits, and so on are no longer controlled by marital status. Instead they are controlled strictly by contract.

I am down with that.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Marriage in turn, is recognized strictly as between a man and a woman as a means to regulate and promote the nuclear family by creating certain legal presumptions and frameworks to promote the valid public purpose of binding parents and their children to each other.

You lose me here.
Opinions:
#1 The government probably should stop recognizing marriages separate from their recognition of domestic partnerships. A definition of marriage is actually not needed from this point of view, and can be left to local social groups like churches or affinity groups
#2 Why would you want to promote the nuclear family? IMHO there are much better ways to live, including for the needs of children.
#3 I do not think "binding" anyone to anyone else is a good idea. I think there should be repercussions for negligence, which is different.

[Hasbinbad]

Look how easy it is to beat hbb !

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Eliseus]

You guys need more tldr;

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys need more tldr;

Quiet noob. Grown folk are speaking.

[Hasbinbad]

Now Xasten, I have addressed everything you said to me. Please stop skipping my salient points in your rebuttals.

[Eliseus]

u dum