New Mexico declares gay marriage bans unconstitutional

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,331
17
76
Of course it has an effect on him. It makes him really angry and he gets his panties in a wad for no apparent reason, and that makes me happy :D

The fight against gay marriage makes me LOL inside. They're all fighting a losing battle over something that has no impact on their lives, and just coming out of it looking like backward hicks, and making Christians look even more intolerant in the process.

No, all it shows is your ignorance of history & your focus on the individual or what you deem their rights or societies obligation to them.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Actually that isn't true. A lot of people experiment with homosexuality. There's even a term, LUG, that means "Lesbian Until Graduation". In the UK, similar behavior among young men in all-male schools is accepted. Seems strange to me, being raised in the rural Bible Belt, but human sexuality is a continuum rather than a binary switch and lots of folks are either unsure where they fall or simply like the thrill of engaging in something illicit and forbidden. In reality a lot of sexuality is confined by societal bonds, so that some portion of those who might be homosexual in a very sexually open society are heterosexual in a very sexually restrictive society.

Or just try visiting a prison.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
You still haven't answered my earlier question. If heterosexual partners who can not have children or do not want children wish to get married, should they be allowed to?

I have no problem with preventing old women from getting married.

If someone does not want child I would say they should not be getting married. Not sure how such a thing would be legally enforceable.

Same issue for fertility. Do you know of a 100% accurate fertility test?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
what is with you? You are perpetually on both sides of this issue, but this is the first time I've seen your doublespeak in essentially two consecutive posts within the same thread.

Even though I disagree with something, that does not mean I want those civil rights taken away.

Its like saying something I disagree with. I might disagree with what you say, but I support your rights to say it.

I find the act of gay male sex disgusting. But if two guys want to marry and pound each others ass every night, who am I to say no.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Even though I disagree with something, that does not mean I want those civil rights taken away.

Its like saying something I disagree with. I might disagree with what you say, but I support your rights to say it.

I find the act of gay male sex disgusting. But if two guys want to marry and pound each others ass every night, who am I to say no.

I guess you find a hetero couple disgusting if the woman puts on a strap-on to give her husband anal sex?
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
I have no problem with preventing old women from getting married.

If someone does not want child I would say they should not be getting married. Not sure how such a thing would be legally enforceable.

Same issue for fertility. Do you know of a 100% accurate fertility test?

Ok, one more time.

If heterosexual partners who can not have children or do not want children wish to get married, should they be legally allowed to?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,433
6,090
126
Even though I disagree with something, that does not mean I want those civil rights taken away.

Its like saying something I disagree with. I might disagree with what you say, but I support your rights to say it.

I find the act of gay male sex disgusting. But if two guys want to marry and pound each others ass every night, who am I to say no.

I take it you pound your wife's pussy every night. So tender and loving of you.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,433
6,090
126
Ok, one more time.

If heterosexual partners who can not have children or do not want children wish to get married, should they be legally allowed to?

He already said, "I have no problem with preventing old women from getting married." Your question should be does that extend to old men. You are trying to reason with a very sick monster. who delights in exposing his infection to others.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
He already said, "I have no problem with preventing old women from getting married." Your question should be does that extend to old men. You are trying to reason with a very sick monster. who delights in exposing his infection to others.

He's neither sick, nor a monster. Simply a wee troll who who apparently has a lot of empty time on his or her hands. I mean, hell, almost 12,000 posts in roughly a year and a half?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
what is with you? You are perpetually on both sides of this issue, but this is the first time I've seen your doublespeak in essentially two consecutive posts within the same thread.
Two points here. First, most issues have valid points on both sides. Second, it's possible to believe that something is absolutely morally wrong without wanting the armed might of government to prevent it, as long as it is between consenting adults. It's respecting your fellow man's right to live his life as a free creature.

I personally see no harm in homosexuality (except that caused by societal forces against it, causing high suicide rates) but I can certainly respect those who believe otherwise - as long as they are not trying to enforce that belief by law.

:D

what a tiny rock you must claim as shelter.
LMAO!

I am SO stealing that!

Well said.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,714
9,598
136
Two points here. First, most issues have valid points on both sides. Second, it's possible to believe that something is absolutely morally wrong without wanting the armed might of government to prevent it, as long as it is between consenting adults. It's respecting your fellow man's right to live his life as a free creature.

No, I don't buy this. Surely things that one considers to be "morally absolutely wrong" are, for example, murder, robbery, etc. Those things aren't typically argued for with a freedom-based perspective.

So, where do anti-gay-marriage people stand? Because surely if they consider it to be "absolutely morally wrong" in the way I just described, then they're not anti-gay-marriage, they're anti-gay.

So if one argues that it's not "absolutely morally wrong, but":

I'm not sure I would buy a theoretical 'middle' position of "not anti-gay just anti-gay-marriage" either, because, frankly, it's saying "if I had my way, they wouldn't be allowed to be openly gay in the first place!". They don't want to look like they'd like to imprison them for non-hetero-compliance (well, some don't mind the idea of that and don't mind expressing it either, but not all), so the next best thing is to deny them the right to get married because many developed countries don't have laws that are gay-compatible yet.

A further reason why I don't buy that 'middle' position is that can anyone see anyone honestly arguing an alternative theoretical position of "I have no problems with gays whatsoever, I approve of people being true to themselves, they can come to my house and be as openly gay as they like! I just don't want them to get married to each other."? It's not even remotely logical.

Even if the use of the word "absolute" is removed from werepossum's statement, if a group came up with a list (as comprehensive as possible) of "morally wrong" things, how many of those wouldn't already be (or generally considered ought to be) a crime in that society? I'm sure that an exception or two can be thought of, but generally speaking I bet I'm right.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
No, I don't buy this. Surely things that one considers to be "morally absolutely wrong" are, for example, murder, robbery, etc. Those things aren't typically argued for with a freedom-based perspective.

So, where do anti-gay-marriage people stand? Because surely if they consider it to be "absolutely morally wrong" in the way I just described, then they're not anti-gay-marriage, they're anti-gay.

So if one argues that it's not "absolutely morally wrong, but":

I'm not sure I would buy a theoretical 'middle' position of "not anti-gay just anti-gay-marriage" either, because, frankly, it's saying "if I had my way, they wouldn't be allowed to be openly gay in the first place!". They don't want to look like they'd like to imprison them for non-hetero-compliance (well, some don't mind the idea of that and don't mind expressing it either, but not all), so the next best thing is to deny them the right to get married because many developed countries don't have laws that are gay-compatible yet.

A further reason why I don't buy that 'middle' position is that can anyone see anyone honestly arguing an alternative theoretical position of "I have no problems with gays whatsoever, I approve of people being true to themselves, they can come to my house and be as openly gay as they like! I just don't want them to get married to each other."? It's not even remotely logical.

Even if the use of the word "absolute" is removed from werepossum's statement, if a group came up with a list (as comprehensive as possible) of "morally wrong" things, how many of those wouldn't already be (or generally considered ought to be) a crime in that society? I'm sure that an exception or two can be thought of, but generally speaking I bet I'm right.
Absolutely morally wrong meaning absolutely wrong according to G-d. Things like dietary restrictions to Orthodox Jews, who follow these restrictions religiously without asking for government enforcement. Basically these people are saying they think homosexuality is wrong, but that's between the individuals and G-d.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,481
4,552
136
Sex between men and women is fine.

Even if that is 2 wives and 1 husband, or 2 husbands and 1 wife.

Sticking your penis in a mans ass for sexual pleasure is immoral.

Only if you didn't have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.

fullmetaljacket.jpg
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,714
9,598
136
Absolutely morally wrong meaning absolutely wrong according to G-d.

I'm thinking most of the Ten Commandments here, but instead...

Things like dietary restrictions to Orthodox Jews,
Yep, definitely what I would call an exception to my point about 'morally wrong'.

who follow these restrictions religiously without asking for government enforcement. Basically these people are saying they think homosexuality is wrong, but that's between the individuals and G-d.
Now refer back to what I said about the 'middle' positions. I'm pretty sure it isn't written, "homosexuality is OK, but thou shalt not let the homos get married", therefore such people are guilty of double standards, being "my God told me not to abide homos, but I did, but I don't abide homos getting married so that somehow makes it OK then".
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,433
6,090
126
He's neither sick, nor a monster. Simply a wee troll who who apparently has a lot of empty time on his or her hands. I mean, hell, almost 12,000 posts in roughly a year and a half?

Well, maybe, but you used the word apparently because you're making a guess based on what you've read this month in the time you have posted 20 times. I've read most of those 12000 posts. Get back to me when you've done the same. I see only hideous positions supported by the logic of a demented thinker, an asshole who loves to run you to ground with contorted stupidity, an illogic top that none the less spins and spins, the same shit swept from the floor by feeling thinkers here, time and time again, the same inanity debunked over and over and over and over again, rehashed in post after post after post. You are debating with a dead machine, a program that can't be changed, an endless outpouring of hatred for women to mention just one thing.

You are looking at Scrooge before Marley's ghost appears, cold boney fingers that reach to snuff out joy, a mind dedicated to revenge for something that happened to him. He feeds when you argue with him, spinning web after web to suck you in deeper.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,714
9,598
136
Like I said, if a married couple does something I do not care.

But you don't want gay couples to be able to marry because then you wouldn't have to care what they do? :confused:

What sort of field is cast by this "I care what they do" opinion you have? How do you feel about lesbian couples getting married, considering they're about as likely to engage in anal sex as hetero couples are (probably)? How are various types of unmarried couples covered?
 
Last edited:

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
But you don't want gay couples to be able to marry because then you wouldn't have to care what they do? :confused:

Just because someone marries does not mean I have to agree with it.

Just because something is legal does not mean I have to agree with it.
 
Last edited:
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
The only way that argument makes sense is if you consider procreation to be tied to marriage. If you accept same-sex marriage obviously you do not and there can be zero argument against incestuous marriage.

You seem to think that you are a rather clever person. Sorry to have to tell, you're not.

You think any of the crap you spout is new and thought provoking? Hell, I saw the same tired arguments back in the old FidoNet days of bbs discussion boards. They made no more sense in those days than they do now. They are the arguments of people who are either trolls or just plain not too bright.

But hey, you obviously need something to occupy your time with. Everyone should have a fun hobby

So much for keeping church and state separate.

Marriage in the United States is the function of the state and is, in and of itself, a relatively simple licensing matter.

Whatever religious ceremonies couples might have/do to celebrate that license have no legal standing whatsoever without that same secular state license.

In this case I'd say separation of church and state is doing just fine
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Its not a strawman. Its basically exactly what same-sex marriage supporters say they believe in. Over and over. For example from this very thread:



Are a brother and a sister, both over 18, two consenting adults. Absolutely.



Why? Because it embarrasses same-sex marriage advocates and/or reveals them as massive hypocrites?

EVERY argument made in favor of same-sex marriage works equally well for incestuous marriage.


This is why, as you already know, it's an issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
Inbreeding

Main article: Inbreeding
Incest that results in offspring is a form of close inbreeding (reproduction between two individuals with a common ancestor). Inbreeding leads to a higher probability of congenital birth defects because it increases that proportion of zygotes that are homozygous, in particular for deleterious recessive alleles that produce such disorders[103] (and see Inbreeding depression). Because most such alleles are rare in populations, it is unlikely that two unrelated marriage partners will both be heterozygous carriers. However, because close relatives share a large fraction of their alleles, the probability that any such rare deleterious allele present in the common ancestor will be inherited from both related parents is increased dramatically with respect to non-inbred couples. Contrary to common belief, inbreeding does not in itself alter allele frequencies, but rather increases the relative proportion of homozygotes to heterozygotes. However, because the increased proportion of deleterious homozygotes exposes the allele to natural selection, in the long run its frequency decreases more rapidly in inbred population. In the short term, incestuous reproduction is expected to produce increases in spontaneous abortions of zygotes, perinatal deaths, and postnatal offspring with birth defects.[104]
There may also be other deleterious effects besides those caused by recessive diseases. Thus, similar immune systems may be more vulnerable to infectious diseases (see Major histocompatibility complex and sexual selection).[105]
A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%.[106] Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding.[15] A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles.[107]
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Well, maybe, but you used the word apparently because you're making a guess based on what you've read this month in the time you have posted 20 times. I've read most of those 12000 posts. Get back to me when you've done the same. I see only hideous positions supported by the logic of a demented thinker, an asshole who loves to run you to ground with contorted stupidity, an illogic top that none the less spins and spins, the same shit swept from the floor by feeling thinkers here, time and time again, the same inanity debunked over and over and over and over again, rehashed in post after post after post. You are debating with a dead machine, a program that can't be changed, an endless outpouring of hatred for women to mention just one thing.

You are looking at Scrooge before Marley's ghost appears, cold boney fingers that reach to snuff out joy, a mind dedicated to revenge for something that happened to him. He feeds when you argue with him, spinning web after web to suck you in deeper.

In other words, he's pretty much a troll. The problem that I see is that he's not particularly good at it. most of his arguments are simply nonsense and people should simply treat them as such. It's just not worth letting him affect you.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,146
24,081
136
He's neither sick, nor a monster. Simply a wee troll who who apparently has a lot of empty time on his or her hands. I mean, hell, almost 12,000 posts in roughly a year and a half?

He has to take out his frustration at being repulsive to women somehow. I at least can't imagine one that would touch him (even for money) if he spouts the same crap in real life that he spouts here.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
He has to take out his frustration at being repulsive to women somehow. I at least can't imagine one that would touch him (even for money) if he spouts the same crap in real life that he spouts here.


Actually, for all we know 'he' is actually a 'she'. The wonders of the internet. Maybe it's Ms nehalem256. :biggrin:
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Actually that isn't true. A lot of people experiment with homosexuality. There's even a term, LUG, that means "Lesbian Until Graduation". In the UK, similar behavior among young men in all-male schools is accepted. Seems strange to me, being raised in the rural Bible Belt, but human sexuality is a continuum rather than a binary switch and lots of folks are either unsure where they fall or simply like the thrill of engaging in something illicit and forbidden. In reality a lot of sexuality is confined by societal bonds, so that some portion of those who might be homosexual in a very sexually open society are heterosexual in a very sexually restrictive society.

If you give it a try, then you are part gay, or as they call it, bisexual.