what goes more against what America is supposed to be about..banning gay marriage or

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Fat chicks need lovin too!

Batter up :biggrin:

miss_chubby_italy_09.jpg
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
0 - worst, 1 - bad, 2 - good, 3 - horrible

That is your argument?

And by the way, you stopped using ratios and switched to totals, so if your going to accuse me of being stupid because I don't understand ratios, make sure you are actually discussing ratios. Ratio would be .5 parents to each child ( my family) compared to 1.1 parent to child, the hypothetical 10 children, 10 mothers, 1 father family. Which would put your hypothetical polygamist family much closer to your preferred ratios than my family was at.

You have also failed to present any science at all supporting your position. There are peer-reviewed journals why don't you go look through them. If you want to claim we don't understand science, find me some actual science to support your argument, because I don't know of any actual studies done on this.

I didn't think I had to hold hands through this, so I'm just going to make your lunch box one last time and call it a day.

Parent numbers increase = greater ratio of parents per child. This is obvious and did not need to be stated.

For a standard 2 parent - 1 child family, you would need 20 parents for 10 children.

That's 10 Fathers and 10 Mothers.

This will NEVER happen. NEVER.

The standard polygamy will consist of 1 father and 5-10 mothers.

The fathers are shared, the mothers are NOT (for obvious reasons - only one of them is actually your mother).

This ranges from a 1.2:1 - 1.1:1 range of parents to children ratio, assuming one child.

In a one child scenario for a standard 2 parent model is 2:1 ratio.

For 2 children per mother, the ratios deteriorate exponentially.

That's 0.6:1 to 0.55:1 ratio for the standard polygamy of 1 father and 5-10 mothers with two children each.

The same ratio in a 2 parent model is a 1:1 ratio.

For a comparable number of children, the standard 2 parent model is always on the order of one magnitude better than the 1 father and 5 mothers polygamy. This should have been obvious given that the Father is always split up and the mothers would naturally direct their primary attention to their own biological children.

.
.
.

Also, do not for one moment forget that this is only 1 of the weakest arguments against polygamy (that is still valid) while there exist many other insurmountable ones.

I only chose to address this one further because people picked this one (for being such fucking dumbasses) to question.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
The parental argument is not even in a question here. Gay couples are allowed to adopt children, or have children. There is no question there. Whether they are married or not is irrelevant to child bearing.


I can absolutely see the logic fail in YOU that you, naturally, presumed that the sex of the Father was the operative descriptor here. :rolleyes:

Here it is for your puny mind:

1 Father
10 Mothers
10 Children

Instead of 2 parents per child, you have 1.1 parents. This gets worse when the mothers have more than 1 child (and obviously, applies to 2 parent families with lots of children as well), but you can clearly see how the problem gets compounded.


Correct. And Wrong. Because of the above. And your own ignorance. And stupidity. :awe:

Here you argue that is the ratio of parents to children, with no reference to father or mother, just parent/child.

Are you stupid?

Parent to child ratio is the most basic indicator of a strong family.

Let's see 0 parents - Worst
Divorced Single Parent or dead parent - Pretty bad
2 Parents - Good

Then you change to total number of parents regardless of the number of children.

For a standard 2 parent - 1 child family, you would need 20 parents for 10 children.

That's 10 Fathers and 10 Mothers.

This will NEVER happen. NEVER.

The standard polygamy will consist of 1 father and 5-10 mothers.

The fathers are shared, the mothers are NOT (for obvious reasons - only one of them is actually your mother).

This ranges from a 1.2:1 - 1.1:1 range of parents to children ratio, assuming one child.

In a one child scenario for a standard 2 parent model is 2:1 ratio.

For 2 children per mother, the ratios deteriorate exponentially.

That's 0.6:1 to 0.55:1 ratio for the standard polygamy of 1 father and 5-10 mothers with two children each.

The same ratio in a 2 parent model is a 1:1 ratio.

For a comparable number of children, the standard 2 parent model is always on the order of one magnitude better than the 1 father and 5 mothers polygamy. This should have been obvious given that the Father is always split up and the mothers would naturally direct their primary attention to their own biological children.



Also, do not for one moment forget that this is only 1 of the weakest arguments against polygamy (that is still valid) while there exist many other insurmountable ones.

I only chose to address this one further because people picked this one (for being such fucking dumbasses) to question.

Finally, you switch back to child to parent ratio, but you seem to be abandoning it as a weak argument. I think you see that if the parent/child ratio is so important, a polygamist marriage can provide many more parents, and it would be better to just set laws that limit the number of children someone can have. There are some families with 10 kids, and 2 parents, isn't that even worse than your worst polygamist example.

Also, if it is a weak argument, lets switch back to my original question, can you provide proof that polygamist marriages are inherently harmful? If that is a much stronger argument, you should be able to provide proof. You stated that next I would ask for proof that the earth was round.

Here, this is how easy it is to link some evidence to support something so obvious:
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Ephemerides/earth_rot.html
http://space.about.com/od/pictures/ig/Earth-Pictures-Gallery/Full-Earth-.htm
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/

See that, the earth is round, it is easy to provide evidence because it is so obvious that the evidence is abundant.

If it is so "self-evident" that polygamy is harmful, find me some evidence. (BTW I already said I don't think there have been studies, and I can't logically prove a negative)
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
Threads like these always shock me. I try to read the arguments from our resident conservatives with an open mind. But all I do is realize that the hardcore conservative crowd is all fucking idiots. Not a single argument being made in here against gay marriage is anything other than fucking retarded. The anti-gay marriage crowd in here is so goddamn retarded you'd think they were birthed by Sarah Palin.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I have yet to hear a counter-argument to the one I've posted in other threads on gay marriage:

(condensed form: ) While traditional marriage has benefits to society in terms of procreation and child rearing, gay marriage has benefits to society too; benefits worth government recognition and advocation.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
I have yet to hear a counter-argument to the one I've posted in other threads on gay marriage:

(condensed form: ) While traditional marriage has benefits to society in terms of procreation and child rearing, gay marriage has benefits to society too; benefits worth government recognition and advocation.

I'm drawing a blank here on the societal benefits of gay civil unions...what did you think they were again (I honestly want to know, because I can't really think of any).

Chuck
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
I'm drawing a blank here on the societal benefits of gay civil unions...what did you think they were again (I honestly want to know, because I can't really think of any).

Chuck

Don't worry about it. Bigotry will just blind you anyway. All you have to know is they can't be denied the right to marry if others can even if there are no benefits whatsoever. Rights are inalienable, not quid pro quo.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
I have yet to hear a counter-argument to the one I've posted in other threads on gay marriage:

(condensed form: ) While traditional marriage has benefits to society in terms of procreation and child rearing, gay marriage has benefits to society too; benefits worth government recognition and advocation.

What benefits are you talking about? As in comparison to what actually?
 

onlyCOpunk

Platinum Member
May 25, 2003
2,532
1
0
What benefits are you talking about? As in comparison to what actually?

If you can't see the benefits then you're missing the whole point of life, and I'm not even going to explain that to you.

As a side note, I'd like to hear your "valid" arguments why same-sex marriage wont benefit society. If you can convince me that I don't deserve to be treated equally as you, then I'll ring up one of those "conversion" centres and convert to being straight.

And also just to put you in your place Classy, regardless if I am gay, I can "act" a straight lifestyle, and I am a white male which will always benefit me better in society then you. If you want to blindly discriminate against me based on my sexuality, then I can do the same to you.

Here's an argument just about equal and on the same level as your arguments against same-sex marriage.....Black people are not fit to be parents. Why? Have you not seen the movie Precious?
 
Last edited:

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
If you can't see the benefits then you're missing the whole point of life, and I'm not even going to explain that to you.

As a side note, I'd like to hear your "valid" arguments why same-sex marriage wont benefit society. If you can convince me that I don't deserve to be treated equally as you, then I'll ring up one of those "conversion" centres and convert to being straight.

And also just to put you in your place Classy, regardless if I am gay, I can "act" a straight lifestyle, and I am a white male which will always benefit me better in society then you. If you want to blindly discriminate against me based on my sexuality, then I can do the same to you.

Here's an argument just about equal and on the same level as your arguments against same-sex marriage.....Black people are not fit to be parents. Why? Have you not seen the movie Precious?

LOL

There is 0 benefit to gay marriage except for the participates. It offers nothing to society, completely empty. It offers confusion for the children, and poor examples of what a man and woman should be. A woman acting like some man and some man screaming and all effeminate like some 9 year old school girl is pathetic. At least in Precious she didn't have lumped into all her other problems any more dysfunctional confusion about what gender she was.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
If you can't see the benefits then you're missing the whole point of life, and I'm not even going to explain that to you.

As a side note, I'd like to hear your "valid" arguments why same-sex marriage wont benefit society. If you can convince me that I don't deserve to be treated equally as you, then I'll ring up one of those "conversion" centres and convert to being straight.

And also just to put you in your place Classy, regardless if I am gay, I can "act" a straight lifestyle, and I am a white male which will always benefit me better in society then you. If you want to blindly discriminate against me based on my sexuality, then I can do the same to you.

Here's an argument just about equal and on the same level as your arguments against same-sex marriage.....Black people are not fit to be parents. Why? Have you not seen the movie Precious?

And your post has proved my point that race and being a Homo-sexual is not the same.
 

onlyCOpunk

Platinum Member
May 25, 2003
2,532
1
0
Classy your argument was all based on opinion and stereotypes. That's like me saying black people are unfit to be parents because of the high rate of crimes committed, drug use, violence within the black community.

Or to take it down to your level, big lipped knuckle dragging apes shouldn't be parents because they're neanderthals. Having black people as parents are just going to confuse children what with them teaching them how to be all black and shit. Baby will probably be born with a crack pipe in its mouth and be confused when it graduates to heroin.

Get a fucking clue. You worldview is slowly becoming the minority, hopefully your children wont pick up your bigotry.
 
Last edited:

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Classy your argument was all based on opinion and stereotypes. That's like me saying black people are unfit to be parents because of the high rate of crimes committed, drug use, violence within the black community.

Or to take it down to your level, big lipped knuckle dragging apes shouldn't be parents because they're neanderthals. Having black people as parents are just going to confuse children what with them teaching them how to be all black and shit. Baby will probably be born with a crack pipe in its mouth and be confused when it graduates to heroin.

Get a fucking clue. You worldview is slowly becoming the minority, hopefully your children wont pick up your bigotry.

Dude your gay and I struck a chord. Not wanting your children to be bleeping gay is not bigoted, is f'in common sense.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Get a fucking clue. You worldview is slowly becoming the minority, hopefully your children wont pick up your bigotry.

Nobody becomes so rabidly homophobic without carrying the gay gene. The gay gene's dominant allele is the gene for self hate and hypocrisy. Chances are good at least one of his children will be gay.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Classy your argument was all based on opinion and stereotypes.

Nonsense, Classy's argument is based on the one and only truth, the Bible. You don't think the guy would be such a complete and total asshole if he weren't absolutely right, do you?
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Nobody becomes so rabidly homophobic without carrying the gay gene. The gay gene's dominant allele is the gene for self hate and hypocrisy. Chances are good at least one of his children will be gay.

Nah not possible. One is a full grown woman who I know without question is not gay. And the little one has already got the glassy eyed look when she sees a cute boy. Nah no nastyness here. Good ole fashioned kids that have been "Raised Right", lol. And Moonie its not about the bible. I am a true Alpha male and I don't have no sympathy for sissys.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Nah not possible. One is a full grown woman who I know without question is not gay. And the little one has already got the glassy eyed look when she sees a cute boy. Nah no nastyness here. Good ole fashioned kids that have been "Raised Right", lol. And Moonie its not about the bible. I am a true Alpha male and I don't have no sympathy for sissys.

True alpha males mount their competition. Consider yourself mounted.
 

onlyCOpunk

Platinum Member
May 25, 2003
2,532
1
0
Sorry classy, I'm not into black dudes, I don't think races should mix. it's bad for society and we don't want kids of mixed race it will just confuse them.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Sorry classy, I'm not into black dudes, I don't think races should mix. it's bad for society and we don't want kids of mixed race it will just confuse them.

Ewwww, I am down with the chicks, you bleeping bleep bleep. And another thing you bleeping bleep. You can bleeping bleep yourself. :). But don't worry I have contributed to the all black segment and mixed segment too. I am an equal opportunity stud muffin.
Cold Black Steel :), lol.

So are you the pitcher or catcher? Are you the husband or man-wife in the relationship?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I am a true Alpha male and I don't have no sympathy for sissys.

Thou doth protest too much. You sound pathetic. Oh, and the word is 'sissies'. See how there's no little red squiggle under it?

By coincidence, Arnold Schwarzeneggar has come out for allowing gays to marry, and as of today's ruling, they will be able to next WEDnesday (who knows if that was intentional).

He has called those he disagrees with 'girly men'. You disagree with him.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
LOL

There is 0 benefit to gay marriage except for the participates.

The word is 'participants'. That's all the benefit that's needed, just as with heterosexuals.

Heterosexuals don't sign a legal contract that they'll have kids.

It offers nothing to society, completely empty.

It offers justice to society instead of bigotry, and it offers everything a heterosexual marriage does.

It offers confusion for the children

Except you're an ignoramus, as every study has found children with two gay parents do as well as better as with two opposite gender parents;

and poor examples of what a man and woman should be.

And a bigot. 'Should be' according to your bigotry.

You know, just to make the point with the blunt manner you seem to need, let's compare what's better for kids, gay parents or black parents.

Massive studies have been done showing that, as I said, children raised by gay parents do no worse than parents raised by heterosexual parents.

Your 'but the children' rants are ignorant lies.

Now, how do children raised by black parents do compared to averages? How is the poverty? How is the educational rate average? How likely are they to go to jail?

Oh.

A hell of a lot worse. What, ten times more likely to go to jail? Higher? And yet you are here wanting to discriminate against gays for non-existent problems?

I will fight for blacks' rights under these circumstances. So you think I won't fight for gays'?

I'll fight for blacks to be given justice and fairness and understanding to help improve the situation - the very things you are so lacking in for others.
 
Last edited: