Judges chide Indiana & Wisconsin state lawyers over gay marriage bans

[Joepublic2]

I don't personally care about gay marriage, but I'm against it at a political level because it causes my ideological opponents to waste their time, energy and capital (political and monetary) fighting for it. Modern marriage is already a shattered social institution; their zeal to hammer this particular nail completely flat delays them driving the final nails into the coffin of western civilization.

I honestly wonder how such people with hatred towards other human beings can slept at night and function.

Just like many in here. I don't see how they can even type the spewage that they post.

I don't know how you conduct yourself day to day seeing as how you work yourself into a frothing rage over "the 1%" on a daily basis.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/we_are_all_the_1_percent

To make it into the richest 1 percent globally, all you need is an income of around $34,000, according to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic. The average family in the United States has more than three times the income of those living in poverty in America, and nearly 50 times that of the world's poorest. Many of America's 99 percenters, and the West's, are really 1 percenters on a global level.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

That's not a draft, it's the hot breath of the global poor breathing down your neck, you fat cat. Better watch your back, Dave.

.

I'm glad to see the doctors adjusted your brain meds. You seem almost coherent lately.

 

[WHAMPOM]

So why do we prohibit incestuous marriage?

Let yourself in for it now, the answer is "YOU".

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
I honestly wonder how such people with hatred towards other human beings can slept at night and function.

I don't know how you conduct yourself day to day seeing as how you work yourself into a frothing rage over "the 1%" on a daily basis.

The 1% are destroying the U.S. and the world.

Why do you not give a fuck? Perhaps because you are part of it as well?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The 1% are destroying the U.S. and the world.

Why do you not give a fuck? Perhaps because you are part of it as well?

You're likely in the global 1%. Why are you destroying the world, Dave?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Marriage is not just about having a child out of wedlock; that's an absurd reduction of the function of marriage to what you wish it would be (since using the actual function of marriage as it exists in society completely undermines every other point you attempt to make). But let's pull that thread anyway; what is the benefit to having a child in wedlock as opposed to out of wedlock in our current society? Do you only get to claim the child as a dependent if you're married? Is paternity/maternity only determined through marriage? Could you get out of child support by never marrying? Does the child have limited rights if it's legally a bastard? What benefit currently exists for children born to married parents that does not exist for children born to unmarried parents?

If you want to know the purpose marriage is based on, go to divorce court. Property first and foremost, children and their welfare come way down the line. Child support is a property based amount off the highest partner's income. Marriage contracts, prenuptials, marriage vows/license do not mention children.

 

[dmcowen674]

If you want to know the purpose marriage is based on, go to divorce court.

Property first and foremost, children and their welfare come way down the line.

Child support is a property based amount off the highest partner's income.

Marriage contracts, prenuptials, marriage vows/license do not mention children.

This

You must speak from personal experience.

 

[zinfamous]

So you really don't see how advocating that marriage and procreation are disconnected from one another will lead to an increase in births to single women?

I will use cute furry creatures, because I assume your mind works better with simpler imagery. Bear in mind, this is partly fantasy land, but it works:

Cats tend to prefer cats and dogs tend to prefer dogs. Be that as it may, many of their relationships are not permanent. Some lady cats and lady dogs will give birth to babies, even if daddy doesn't hang around, goes off and gets other ladies pregnant.

That has always been true.

What has also always been true, is that, sometimes, some cats prefer dogs and some dogs prefer cats. These individuals never would have been with their same species, anyway, so it's as if there existence has no influence on what the majority cats and dogs do with their mates and lifestyle.

Now, some people think that, despite cats preferring dogs always having existed, and never having influence over what cat/cat and dog/dog households do, accepting this habit now, will somehow encourage cats that always liked cats to now...prefer dogs?

I don't get that.

Further, I don't get the notion that daddy dogs and daddy cats running around with various other ladies, as they already have been doing, will somehow start doing that more frequently, simply because other cats and dogs that always existed and never influenced their habits, suddenly have a similar social status.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Because allowing same-sex marriage says LOUDLY that marriage has nothing to do with having children.

How does saying that marriage has nothing to do with having children encourage more children to be raised in wedlock?

Do you believe that heterosexual couples who can't have children, or don't wish to have children, should be allowed to legally marry?

 

[Victorian Gray]

So why do we prohibit incestuous marriage?

 

[zinfamous]

Gay people currently do have equal rights. The right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Just because they are not interested in making use of the same right I have does not mean they get a new one.

astonishingly obtuse.

 

[Meghan54]

astonishingly obtuse.

Not really, par for the course considering the source.

 

[jhbball]

astonishingly obtuse.

I found a video of nehalem disowning his child I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1df_i26wh-w&feature=youtu.be

 

[nehalem256]

And of course that posters only makes sense if you assume that procreation is necessarily linked to marriage.

But wait didn't liberals reject that linkage in their support of same-sex marriage?

 

[fskimospy]

And of course that posters only makes sense if you assume that procreation is necessarily linked to marriage.

But wait didn't liberals reject that linkage in their support of same-sex marriage?

Since that's obviously false, case closed.

 

[nehalem256]

I will use cute furry creatures, because I assume your mind works better with simpler imagery. Bear in mind, this is partly fantasy land, but it works:

Cats tend to prefer cats and dogs tend to prefer dogs. Be that as it may, many of their relationships are not permanent. Some lady cats and lady dogs will give birth to babies, even if daddy doesn't hang around, goes off and gets other ladies pregnant.

That has always been true.

What has also always been true, is that, sometimes, some cats prefer dogs and some dogs prefer cats. These individuals never would have been with their same species, anyway, so it's as if there existence has no influence on what the majority cats and dogs do with their mates and lifestyle.

Now, some people think that, despite cats preferring dogs always having existed, and never having influence over what cat/cat and dog/dog households do, accepting this habit now, will somehow encourage cats that always liked cats to now...prefer dogs?

I don't get that.

Further, I don't get the notion that daddy dogs and daddy cats running around with various other ladies, as they already have been doing, will somehow start doing that more frequently, simply because other cats and dogs that always existed and never influenced their habits, suddenly have a similar social status.

Where have I ever made that claim?

Did I say that same-sex marriage will turn straight people gay?

 

[nehalem256]

Since that's obviously false, case closed.

So then there is no reason to prohibit incestuous marriage right?

After all an incestuous couple could use surrogates or sperm donors or adopt or remain childless.

 

[fskimospy]

So then there is no reason to prohibit incestuous marriage right?

After all an incestuous couple could use surrogates or sperm donors or adopt or remain childless.

I personally have no problem with it. Incestuous child bearing should be regulated as it can have long term health effects that the rest of society must bear, but they should be able to marry all they want.

The idea that marriage and procreation are necessarily linked is easily disproven by... well... spending about one day in the real world.

 

[nehalem256]

I personally have no problem with it. Incestuous child bearing should be regulated as it can have long term health effects that the rest of society must bear, but they should be able to marry all they want.

Ah, so you are in favor of eugenics!

Interesting. Should we also regulate poor people from having children since it can have costs that the rest of society must bear?

 

[Anubis]

Ah, so you are in favor of eugenics!

Interesting. Should we also regulate poor people from having children since it can have costs that the rest of society must bear?

yes

yes we should

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Should we also regulate poor people from having children since it can have costs that the rest of society must bear?

Regulate them from having children? No

Regulate them from getting public assistance after X number of kids? Absolutely

 

[nehalem256]

Regulate them from having children? No

Regulate them from getting public assistance after X number of kids? Absolutely

So then likewise. We could allow related people to have children. But then prohibit public assistance for their defective children.

But that is not what eskimospy was suggesting. He is advocating a ban on incestuous reproduction because it CAN lead to defective offspring. This is called eugenics.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, so you are in favor of eugenics!

Interesting. Should we also regulate poor people from having children since it can have costs that the rest of society must bear?

Genetic deformities are not the same thing as being poor, dumbass.

Don't you ever get tired of the endless mockery that everyone gives you for continually saying such irrational and illogical things?

 

[fskimospy]

So then likewise. We could allow related people to have children. But then prohibit public assistance for their defective children.

But that is not what eskimospy was suggesting. He is advocating a ban on incestuous reproduction because it CAN lead to defective offspring. This is called eugenics.

Uh oh, the guy who advocates for women to be arrested and their children forcibly aborted is concerned that someone else might be unethical!

We all better pay really close attention to his opinions.

 

[nehalem256]

Genetic deformities are not the same thing as being poor, dumbass.

They both impose burdens on society. Which was your stated reason for opposing incestuous couples reproducing.

Incestuous child bearing should be regulated as it can have long term health effects that the rest of society must bear

Looks like hypocritespy strikes again!

Though you are right there is a small difference. Incestuous child bearing CAN have costs that society has to bear. Whereas poor people having children DOES have costs that society has to bear. Although that doesn't really justify your hypocrisy against; just reinforce it.

 

[fskimospy]

They both impose burdens on society. Which was your stated reason for opposing incestuous couples reproducing.

This logic only makes sense if everything that has a burden has an equal burden. The only way you would believe this is if you are incapable of reading or are incapable of performing basic arithmetic.

Looks like hypocritespy strikes again!

Though you are right there is a small difference. Incestuous child bearing CAN have costs that society has to bear. Whereas poor people having children DOES have costs that society has to bear. Although that doesn't really justify your hypocrisy against; just reinforce it.

Interesting, your certainty that all poor children must have net costs for society to bear is so obviously false that again I'm forced to conclude that you're either having a problem with basic reading or basic math. (I do enjoy how frequently you confuse your stupidity for my hypocrisy though, hahaha)

Which one is it? I won't reply to any further meaningless tangents until you are able to identify which basic skill you're having trouble with, that way we can tailor our answers to best help you!