Arkansas judge strikes down same sex marriage ban.

[K1052]

Uh.., ok. Sorry you had to go through that. But are you saying that the "ignorant person" is reflective of the actions of most people not supportive of gay marriage?

My issue is you trying to make two things equivalent that are not. My calling people who advocate for gay marriage bans "nut bags" is somehow in the same vein as all the oppression (physical, political, and social) gays have had to deal with from religious institutions and their followers. I find that premise absurd and sounds like someone playing the victim card because they don't like that society is moving away from some of their beliefs.

I honestly couldn't care less what religion a person follows. If you want to worship a moldy loaf of bread with 80s synth music then have at it as long as it doesn't impact anyone else.

 

[Retro Rob]

My issue is you trying to make two things equivalent that are not. My calling people who advocate for gay marriage bans "nut bags" is somehow in the same vein as all the oppression (physical, political, and social) gays have had to deal with from religious institutions and their followers.

I simply said acting as your opponents act will not net positive results. I'm not saying what you're doing is the same as what they did -- however, the hateful attitude is manifest.

We're intelligent beings...we can sense a lynch-mob mentality without you having to actually do it.

I guess you didn't know about the Dolphins player who was fined and suspended for voicing his disgust over seeing two men kiss on ESPN.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...es-fined-suspended-for-anti-michael-sam-tweet

Nowadays, you don't have to beat and kill pro-traditional marriage supporters -- you can seriously impact their abilities to earn a living and securing employment, something equally (if not more) bigoted.

 

[K1052]

I simply said acting as your opponents act will not net positive results. I'm not saying what you're doing is the same as what they did -- however, the hateful attitude is manifest.

We're intelligent beings...we can sense a lynch-mob mentality without you having to actually do it.

I guess you didn't know about the Dolphins player who was fined and suspended for voicing his disgust over seeing two men kiss on ESPN.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...es-fined-suspended-for-anti-michael-sam-tweet

Nowadays, you don't have to beat and kill pro-traditional marriage supporters -- you can seriously impact their abilities to earn a living and securing employment, something equally (if not more) bigoted.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that free speech means freedom from consequences.

As a business they set standards of conduct they expect their employees to abide by. If you knowingly do not abide by said standards you can be penalized. Seems pretty straightforward.

 

[Retro Rob]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that free speech means freedom from consequences.

As a business they set standards of conduct they expect their employees to abide by. If you knowingly do not abide by said standards you can be penalized. Seems pretty straightforward.

My post has nothing to do with speech, and everything to do with the NFLs knee-jerk reaction being facilitated by the certain "off with his head" reaction sure to come from the gay community.

It's happened countless times.

 

[K1052]

My post has nothing to do with speech, and everything to do with the NFLs knee-jerk reaction being facilitated by the certain "off with his head" reaction sure to come from the gay community.

It's happened countless times.

He violated written club and league policy, adherence to which is a condition of his contract. I don't think he should be fired. He was censured sufficiently for single occurrence, IMO.

 

[smackababy]

He violated written club and league policy, adherence to which is a condition of his contract. I don't think he should be fired. He was censured sufficiently for single occurrence, IMO.

And, had a team owner come out and say "Congratulations, but we <whatever team> would never allow such perversion in our organization." exactly how many people would be screaming to lynch the guy that said it?

More and more, the people trying to get equal rights are bullying and doing exactly what they are fighting to stop happening to them.

Don't get me wrong, I think anyone against gay marriage is a moron. There are literally zero logical reasons two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to marry. But, I am not going to scream "burn them at the stake" at the morons who refuse to accept it.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's wrong because Vaux says so!

Well Vaux, I have to say, you've totally convinced me with your arguments against gay marriage. The logic and evidence you presented was flawless and compelling!

Oh wait, there wasn't any. "Vaux thinks it's wrong" is an argument that lacks substance.

What will happen to you if gay people are allowed to marry? Nothing.

What will happen to society if gay people are allowed to marry? Nothing negative. So what's your problem?

Legalizing gay marriage because of this is cutting off your arm when only your finger is broken.

My mind boggled at the analogy you employed here. I think I can guess the vague gist of the route your mind took to think "this is a great analogy!", but I don't think you thought about who (or what?)'s figurative arm is getting cut off in this situation.

 

[Retro Rob]

He violated written club and league policy, adherence to which is a condition of his contract. I don't think he should be fired. He was censured sufficiently for single occurrence, IMO.

That's fine, but I am unaware of a policy that states he cannot voice his opinion on homosexuality in public if it's not always supportive of it.

What he said really wasn't homophobic. Some people think the same about heterosexuals kissing, but I'm not aware of a person being fined for saying that.

Also, I don't think it would be in the best interest of society to censor opinions that aren't in agreement with society.

 

[nehalem256]

What will happen to you if gay people are allowed to marry? Nothing.

What will happen to you if people are allowed to marry their porn filled apple computers? Nothing.

What will happen to society if gay people are allowed to marry? Nothing negative.

What will happen to society if people are allowed to marry their porn filled apple computers? Nothing.

So by your own logic their is no argument against letting people marry their porn filled apple computer :thumbsup:

Although of course I have to disagree with you on the 2nd. What happens to society is that marriage is turned from an institution with actual value to society to one that is nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

 

[K1052]

That's fine, but I am unaware of a policy that states he cannot voice his opinion on homosexuality in public if it's not always supportive of it.

What he said really wasn't homophobic. Some people think the same about heterosexuals kissing, but I'm not aware of a person being fined for saying that.

Also, I don't think it would be in the best interest of society to censor opinions that aren't in agreement with society.

If his views are inconsistent with established NFL and club non-discrimination and harassment policy (and he is unable to remain silent) then perhaps he's working in the wrong place.

He should say whatever he wants. His employer is under no obligation to retain him however if those opinions reflect poorly on them not to mention violate policies he agreed to abide by.

 

[Retro Rob]

If his views are inconsistent with established NFL and club non-discrimination and harassment policy (and he is unable to remain silent) then perhaps he's working in the wrong place.

How in the hell is saying you think gay kissing is "yucky" tantamount to violating the NFL's harassment policy? Who was he "harassing"? How is that discriminating?

So in order to work in the NFL, we must "remain silent" on something as polarizing and important as gay players in the NFL? What if I disagree with gay marriage? Should my right to earn a living be systematically removed from me?

You see why we equate your views with fascism?

 

[TheSiege]

What will happen to you if people are allowed to marry their porn filled apple computers? Nothing.



What will happen to society if people are allowed to marry their porn filled apple computers? Nothing.

So by your own logic their is no argument against letting people marry their porn filled apple computer :thumbsup:

Although of course I have to disagree with you on the 2nd. What happens to society is that marriage is turned from an institution with actual value to society to one that is nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

As soon as a computer can sign a marriage certificate by its own free will, then I say let it.

But really there is no valid argument to deny same sex couples the right to marry, and Judge after Judge after Judge are agreeing with that exponentially.

 

[nehalem256]

As soon as a computer can sign a marriage certificate by its own free will, then I say let it.

What person is harmed by forcibly marrying a computer against its "free will"? No one.

But really there is no valid argument to deny same sex couples the right to marry, and Judge after Judge after Judge are agreeing with that exponentially.

The fact that homosexual relationships have nothing to do with marriage would seem to be a pretty valid one.

 

[smackababy]

What person is harmed by forcibly marrying a computer against its "free will"? No one.



The fact that homosexual relationships have nothing to do with marriage would seem to be a pretty valid one.

Being married to your computer would allow you to claim it as a dependent (considering you provide 100% for it), thus giving you tax breaks that are inconsistent with the spirit of the tax law. Thus, that harms all persons, as the tax dollars the government is getting.

 

[mikeymikec]

What happens to society is that marriage is turned from an institution with actual value to society to one that is nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

So your logic here is that if gay people are allowed to marry, they'll only want to marry to grab benefits, is this correct? Furthermore, allowing gay people to marry means that marriage means nothing? A load of people want to have a right that they consider to be important, they get it, then it has no value? Is this the logic that your argument rides on?

Not that benefit cheating is relevant to the discussion in any case, unless you can prove that all or most gay people are benefits cheaters.

PS, you still haven't conceded the point you made earlier (see my previous response to you).

PPS - We know you have a burning desire to marry your toaster (pun not intended), substituting it for 'computer' fools no-one here! Alternatively, if you can't tell the difference between an inanimate object and a adult human capable of consenting to marriage vows, then I think this discussion is a bit too high-brow for you.

 

[nehalem256]

Being married to your computer would allow you to claim it as a dependent (considering you provide 100% for it), thus giving you tax breaks that are inconsistent with the spirit of the tax law. Thus, that harms all persons, as the tax dollars the government is getting.

Being married to your gay butt buddy would allow you to claim him as a dependent , thus giving you tax breaks that are inconsistent with the spirit of the tax law. Thus, that harms all persons, as the tax dollars the government is getting.

Seems like you answered the question as for how same-sex marriage harms society :thumbsup:

 

[Retro Rob]

Being married to your computer would allow you to claim it as a dependent (considering you provide 100% for it), thus giving you tax breaks that are inconsistent with the spirit of the tax law. Thus, that harms all persons, as the tax dollars the government is getting.

I'm not advocating object marriage, but I thought you are full "equality" for all.

Just to be clear, I'm not siding with Nehalem, but we cannot just dismiss it because its not the norm, but according to one, its beneficial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality#Awareness

Objectum Sexuality flashed into mainstream and has been the subject in a wide variety of international media stemming from ABC News Good Morning America and the Tyra Banks Show where they featured Erika Eiffel and her marriage to the Eiffel Tower discussing how her object love empowered her to become a two time world champion in archery and her role as a spokesperson for OS.[3]

You're either for equality, or you're not.

 

[nehalem256]

To begin with, please concede the point you were wrong about earlier in this thread when you were said that marriage is "about sex, not love".

Sex, not love, is the distinguishing characteristic of marriage. So I think it is fair to say that marriage is about sex not love.

Logical fallacy. I agreed that marriage was to control heterosexual sexual relationships, not that it is. The reasons why it was are obvious, for example to encourage men to take part in child rearing, to provide an element of protection, and to stop them shagging everything that moves. Women were considered mostly only good for child and home care stuff for a long time, and now their role in society is virtually identical to man's except they spend a short period of time pregnant and feeding a child (typically speaking, if they have a child at all).

So basically your argument is that the reason for marriage is dead therefore gay marriage :\

As for the present day, IMO the relevance of marriage as far as society is concerned is as follows (as far as I've given it thought anyway):

1) Humans tend to prefer being in a relationship to being alone (so it encourages healthier behaviour mentally)
2) Children are likely to benefit from having more stable role model figures around than less
3) A household with two financial incomes ought to be more stable than one

All three of those apply to gay people just as much as hetero.

(1) Humans can easily be in a relationship without being married. In fact being in a relationship prior to marriage is almost required
(2) Sounds an awful lot like the old reason for marriage huh?
(3) Sound like an argument for polygamy.

 

[smackababy]

Being married to your gay butt buddy would allow you to claim him as a dependent , thus giving you tax breaks that are inconsistent with the spirit of the tax law. Thus, that harms all persons, as the tax dollars the government is getting.

Seems like you answered the question as for how same-sex marriage harms society :thumbsup:

Except, if you provide more than 50% of the income for your "gay butt buddy", they are legally your dependent. An object can not provide for itself, therefore will always be a dependent.

If my argument "works" to prove homosexual marriage is bad, it equally "works" to prove heterosexual marriage is equally bad.

I'm not advocating object marriage, but I thought you are full "equality" for all.

Just to be clear, I'm not siding with Nehalem, but we cannot just dismiss it because its not the norm, but according to one, its beneficial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality#Awareness



You're either for equality, or you're not.

I am not against people loving objects, however, receiving the benefits from being married to things not intended, I am against. If someone marrying an object cannot claim said object as a dependent (and thus receive the tax breaks associated with it), I am perfectly fine with it.

 

[K1052]

How in the hell is saying you think gay kissing is "yucky" tantamount to violating the NFL's harassment policy? Who was he "harassing"? How is that discriminating?

So in order to work in the NFL, we must "remain silent" on something as polarizing and important as gay players in the NFL? What if I disagree with gay marriage? Should my right to earn a living be systematically removed from me?

You see why we equate your views with fascism?

Look it up for yourself. I can certainly see how his comment could be interpreted by the club as a violation of their policies and the inclusiveness the NFL wishes to represent as a whole on behalf of their organization. Do you need Roger Goodell to drop in and personally explain this to you?

The league and club sets standards for behavior. If at any time those standards are incompatible with your beliefs then it would not be the place for you. There is no right to play professional football.

 

[nehalem256]

So your logic here is that if gay people are allowed to marry, they'll only want to marry to grab benefits, is this correct? Furthermore, allowing gay people to marry means that marriage means nothing?

That is pretty much what same-sex supporters have been saying in this thread. Marriage can mean anything anyone wants it too. And anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

A load of people want to have a right that they consider to be important, they get it, then it has no value? Is this the logic that your argument rides on?

There is no right to same-sex marriage. Twisting marriage to include same-sex couples requires depriving it of all meaning.

That is basically what same-sex marriage supporters say over and over. Same-sex couples should be able to get married because they want benefits.

Not that benefit cheating is relevant to the discussion in any case, unless you can prove that all or most gay people are benefits cheaters.

Benefit cheating would not be limited to homosexuals. If you deprive the idea of marriage of all meaning then heterosexuals would be stupid not to get in on it too

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not advocating object marriage, but I thought you are full "equality" for all.

Just to be clear, I'm not siding with Nehalem, but we cannot just dismiss it because its not the norm, but according to one, its beneficial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality#Awareness



You're either for equality, or you're not.

Inanimate objects cannot enter into contracts. There's nothing about equality there, it is just the simple fact that an object cannot consent to marriage.

 

[Retro Rob]

I can certainly see how his comment could be interpreted by the club as a violation of their policies and the inclusiveness the NFL wishes to represent as a whole on behalf of their organization.

So is telling hetero couples to get a room because you don't want to see them slobbing each other on TV enough for you to be suspended from your job?

On exactly what planet do you live?

Do you need Roger Goodell to drop in and personally explain this to you?

I actually need you to explain to me how thinking a gay kiss is "yucky" a violation of an anti-harassment policy.

Who was being harassed? Michael Sam sure wasn't.

 

[nehalem256]

Except, if you provide more than 50% of the income for your "gay butt buddy", they are legally your dependent. An object can not provide for itself, therefore will always be a dependent.

If my argument "works" to prove homosexual marriage is bad, it equally "works" to prove heterosexual marriage is equally bad.

Indeed it could. Unless of course it was shown that recognized heterosexual relationships was valuable to society.

The point being that onerous is on the person demanding X-marriage to prove that said marriage provides value.

I am not against people loving objects, however, receiving the benefits from being married to things not intended, I am against. If someone marrying an object cannot claim said object as a dependent (and thus receive the tax breaks associated with it), I am perfectly fine with it.

So you want to deny them benefits. Sounds like bigotry to me.

 

[waggy]

lol..some of these arguments...amazing.