Who should be allowed to marry?

[cybrsage]

Are you serious? You put 2 women together they are never going to procreate.

He does not understand basic human reproduction - he is a liberal, what can you expect?

 

[sandorski]

Uh... Yes it does.

Anything that works against our ability to survive is unnatural.... from death, to disease. Death and disease has simply become a part of life, though no one desires to get sick and die.

Granted, not wanting to reproduce is going contrary to nature to a degree, however, lacking desire isn't the same as lacking ability. SS couples lack ability.

Negative. If a Woman is barren, is it Natural for her to have Sex? Of course it is, even though she can't Reproduce. According to your criteria She would not be Natural.

Death and Disease are also Natural, to say otherwise is idiocy.

"Natural" is what occurs in Nature, not what you deem it as.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It sucks for me in that it's pretty useless to argue with that sort of stupidity.

If it's so stupid, you should be able to explain the flaw in the reasoning. Why can't you?

Sperm banks are plentiful, male friends are often willing to "contribute", and so forth. Sperm is not the bottleneck to procreation -- fertile women are.

A lesbian couple has two. A straight couple has one.

Though I think I now understand why the discussion club is dead.

It's not dead. It's just not full of people screaming at each other, trolling, and behaving like irrational lunatics.

We call that "quality over quantity" in the business world. And it's good to have choices.

 

[ccbadd]

No one

This.

 

[Greenman]

If it's so stupid, you should be able to explain the flaw in the reasoning. Why can't you?

Sperm banks are plentiful, male friends are often willing to "contribute", and so forth. Sperm is not the bottleneck to procreation -- fertile women are.

A lesbian couple has two. A straight couple has one.



It's not dead. It's just not full of people screaming at each other, trolling, and behaving like irrational lunatics.

We call that "quality over quantity" in the business world. And it's good to have choices.

Well, since we can't agree on what a "couple" is, we can consider that topic finished. As for DC, call it whatever you want, but it's one dimensional.

 

[randomrogue]

Well, since we can't agree on what a "couple" is, we can consider that topic finished. As for DC, call it whatever you want, but it's one dimensional.

It's difficult for you to understand the DC since you don't know how to present, debate, or defend a position.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well, since we can't agree on what a "couple" is, we can consider that topic finished.

Er... a couple is two people. (Is this really controversial?!)

As for DC, call it whatever you want, but it's one dimensional.

As opposed to yet-another-thread-about-gay-marriage-filled-with-lies-and-irrational-arguments?

I'll take any thread in DC over ten threads in here.

 

[Greenman]

It's difficult for you to understand the DC since you don't know how to present, debate, or defend a position.

I suppose that's altogether possible, perhaps I'm just not bright enough to engage the mental giants inhabiting the DC.

I assumed that the point of the DC was that the many members who avoided P&N because of the relentless stupidity and anger would have a place to discuss politics and news. The idea being that without the hostility, more people would be involved.
What I actually see is a boy's club with little dissenting opinion and a secret admission's policy where everyone is prejudged. I also see one member who's responsible for most of the topics. All of that might equate to a very broad pool of information and opinion to you, to me, it's predictable, uninspired, and boring. Based on the lack of participants, I'd guess I'm not the only one with that opinion, or perhaps it's just that virtually every other member of AT is as dim witted as me.

 

[nehalem256]

As opposed to yet-another-thread-about-gay-marriage-filled-with-lies-and-irrational-arguments?

You mean like it doesn't take a man and woman to procreate?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I assumed that the point of the DC was that the many members who avoided P&N because of the relentless stupidity and anger would have a place to discuss politics and news. The idea being that without the hostility, more people would be involved.

I for one was never under much illusion that there would be more traffic in DC than P&N. It's newer, there are people who don't like the concept, and the simple reality is that too many people would rather scream at each other than have an intelligent conversation.

Also, there are people who know that their views simply won't hold up under scrutiny.

But it is there for those who appreciate something better than what happens here.

What I actually see is a boy's club with little dissenting opinion and a secret admission's policy where everyone is prejudged.

There's no "secret admission policy", and to my knowledge, everyone who has asked for premission to post there has been granted it, except for one individual.

I also see one member who's responsible for most of the topics.

Well, I do wish more people would post new threads, but since they aren't, I'm doing my best to seed discussion with a new topic or two daily. In time, people will get more comfortable and will start more threads. It's only been a few weeks.

Bear in mind that this was never my personal preference in terms of what to do with P&N. If I were in charge, I would have just come into P&N with a big virtual garbage bag and taken out the trash. But a lot of people seem to prefer waddling in the filth, so, it remains.

All of that might equate to a very broad pool of information and opinion to you, to me, it's predictable, uninspired, and boring.

If you think a topic isn't being discussed that should be, you could start it. If you think opinions are insufficiently broad, you could broaden them.

Or, you could just sit here and curse the darkness. The choice, as always, is yours.

 

[LunarRay]

I for one was never under much illusion that there would be more traffic in DC than P&N. It's newer, there are people who don't like the concept, and the simple reality is that too many people would rather scream at each other than have an intelligent conversation.

Also, there are people who know that their views simply won't hold up under scrutiny.

But it is there for those who appreciate something better than what happens here.

What happens here, it seems, is a group of diverse folks applying their diversity to what interests them using the tools they possess. Does it matter that a view won't hold up if the objective is to comment with their faith on a topic being the basis? (not religious faith but belief without evidence that that belief is factual)

There's no "secret admission policy", and to my knowledge, everyone who has asked for permission to post there has been granted it, except for one individual.

OMG.... There is no Secret Cow Level??? Ah... well... I never did like Buckley when I could listen to Dawkins battle/debate.

Well, I do wish more people would post new threads, but since they aren't, I'm doing my best to seed discussion with a new topic or two daily. In time, people will get more comfortable and will start more threads. It's only been a few weeks.

Bear in mind that this was never my personal preference in terms of what to do with P&N. If I were in charge, I would have just come into P&N with a big virtual garbage bag and taken out the trash. But a lot of people seem to prefer waddling in the filth, so, it remains.

I guess some folks go nuts if they get a spot on their tuxedo as they slave away in the kitchen... You'd think folks would wear what is appropriate for the environment... an apron might help.

You'd model P&N after what YOU like and it seems everyone else would too... I think P&N is or has simmered down quite a bit... and diversity flourishes.... a rose is but a weed among the grass...

If you think a topic isn't being discussed that should be, you could start it. If you think opinions are insufficiently broad, you could broaden them.

Or, you could just sit here and curse the darkness. The choice, as always, is yours.

Just wait.... the sun will come up soon.... look... it is light outside and inside too... amazing the translucent quality of the window...

 

[Greenman]

What happens here, it seems, is a group of diverse folks applying their diversity to what interests them using the tools they possess. Does it matter that a view won't hold up if the objective is to comment with their faith on a topic being the basis? (not religious faith but belief without evidence that that belief is factual)




OMG.... There is no Secret Cow Level??? Ah... well... I never did like Buckley when I could listen to Dawkins battle/debate.



I guess some folks go nuts if they get a spot on their tuxedo as they slave away in the kitchen... You'd think folks would wear what is appropriate for the environment... an apron might help.

You'd model P&N after what YOU like and it seems everyone else would too... I think P&N is or has simmered down quite a bit... and diversity flourishes.... a rose is but a weed among the grass...




Just wait.... the sun will come up soon.... look... it is light outside and inside too... amazing the translucent quality of the window...

And on that note, I'm going to go buff up the V-Rod and ride down to my favorite watering hole for a single malt libation and an in depth contemplation of the futility of internet chatter.

 

[cybrsage]

You mean like it doesn't take a man and woman to procreate?

Shhhh...he honestly believes you do not need a male and a female human in order for human reproduction to happen. He will start cursing you out and calling you a troll if you try and explain it to him.

 

[zsdersw]

You mean like it doesn't take a man and woman to procreate?

No, like your talk about toasters.

 

[nehalem256]

No, like your talk about toasters.

Object sexuals are a legitimate sexual minority. Just because they don't have parades does not make it acceptable to discriminate against them.

 

[zsdersw]

Object sexuals are a legitimate sexual minority. Just because they don't have parades does not make it acceptable to discriminate against them.

They are not relevant to a discussion about the government's involvement in marriage... and are brought up only by you and only to reduce to the absurd.

You don't have any real concern for the handful of object-sexuals in the US, you're just using them to thwart gay marriage. That's pretty despicable, to be honest... but then again, it's expected from you.

 

[nehalem256]

They are not relevant to a discussion about the government's involvement in marriage... and are brought up only by you and only to reduce to the absurd.

If the government cannot discriminate against sexual minorities with regard to who can marry they cannot discriminate against objectsexuals.

If the government can discriminate against sexual minorities with regard to who can marry then they can prohibit same-sex marriage.

Where is the absurdity? I bet if you went back 100 years ago they would not find marrying someone of the same sex any less absurd than marrying a toaster.

 

[zsdersw]

If the government cannot discriminate against sexual minorities with regard to who can marry they cannot discriminate against objectsexuals.

If the government can discriminate against sexual minorities with regard to who can marry then they can prohibit same-sex marriage.

The government can discriminate against sexual minorities with regard to who can marry, but the minority you're talking about (object-sexuals) would be seeking marriage to things that are not seen by government and law as citizens. If they want to marry their objects a lot of things about government and law have to be changed first.

Where is the absurdity? I bet if you went back 100 years ago they would not find marrying someone of the same sex any less absurd than marrying a toaster.

As far as object-sexual marriage is concerned, I don't have any personal objection to it... but it would require a number of changes to the authority and scope of our legal system. The principal problem is that objects cannot be held accountable; they cannot give consent, they cannot be sued (if the divorce isn't amicable), and they cannot fill out any government forms or documents. They don't have social security numbers and are not citizens that are taxed, and there is no immigration and naturalization program that can make the objects citizens.

If you'd like to make the required changes to eliminate these problems, be my guest... but until then, bringing up object-sexuals in a discussion about homosexual marriage is 100% absurd and, in an online forum, something only a troll would do.

 

[nehalem256]

As far as object-sexual marriage is concerned, I don't have any personal objection to it... but it would require a number of changes to the authority and scope of our legal system. The principal problem is that objects cannot be held accountable; they cannot give consent, they cannot be sued (if the divorce isn't amicable), and they cannot fill out any government forms or documents. They don't have social security numbers and are not citizens that are taxed.

First off consent is not strictly required for something to be a marriage. Now it is obviously reasonable to require the consent of every person entering into a marriage in modern society, but this would not change under object sexual marriage.

Second, in many states it is possible for minors to marry.

Third, why would divorce not be amicable with a toaster

Fourth, you do not have to be a citizen or have a SSN to get married.

The principal problem is that your conception of marriage is bigoted toward object sexual people.

If you'd like to make the required changes to eliminate these problems, be my guest... but until then, bringing up object-sexuals in a discussion about homosexual marriage is 100% absurd and, in an online forum, something only a troll would do.

Heaven forbid the government have to change forms to protect the rights of sexual minorities...

Oh wait:

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-judge-approves-birth-certificate-listing-three-parents-233555185.html

 

[zsdersw]

First off consent is not strictly required for something to be a marriage. Now it is obviously reasonable to require the consent of every person entering into a marriage in modern society, but this would not change under object sexual marriage.

Government enforces contracts, and marriage is a contract as far as the government is concerned. Contracts require two or more parties to agree to enter into the contract.

Second, in many states it is possible for minors to marry.

Minors have consciousness and can express, one way or another, whether or not they consent to something. Objects do not have consciousness and cannot give or deny consent.

Fourth, you do not have to be a citizen or have a SSN to get married.

Government and law cannot determine the citizenship status of objects. That would need to change first.

The principal problem is that your conception of marriage is bigoted toward object sexual people.

No it's not. I'm just pointing out the systemic legal hurdles that must first be cleared before object-sexuals can marry the objects they choose.

Heaven forbid the government have to change forms to protect the rights of sexual minorities...

Oh wait:

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-judge-approves-birth-certificate-listing-three-parents-233555185.html

You assume I have a problem with making changes to forms. I don't, I simply am pointing out that those changes need to be made before the idea of marrying an object can seriously be considered.

 

[nehalem256]

Government enforces contracts, and marriage is a contract as far as the government is concerned. Contracts require two or more parties to agree to enter into the contract.

Marriage is not just a contract between 2 people. It confers obligations onto 3 parties such as the government.

Minors have consciousness and can express, one way or another, whether or not they consent to something. Objects do not have consciousness and cannot give or deny consent.

Children are not typically allowed to consent to things.

Government and law cannot determine the citizenship status of objects. That would need to change first.

Citizenship is not required for marriage, so nothing needs to change.

No it's not. I'm just pointing out the systemic legal hurdles that must first be cleared before object-sexuals can marry the objects they choose.

You assume I have a problem with making changes to forms. I don't, I simply am pointing out that those changes need to be made before the idea of marrying an object can seriously be considered.

I don't think the legal "hurdles" are really all that large. More like mental hurdles

But Im glad that you appear to believe that same-sex marriage is just as sensible as object-sexual marriage.

 

[IGBT]

marriage license should expire every 5 years. If they can't tolerate each other for 5 years then there is no bond. If there is let them renew their license for another 5 years. This would assure a bad relationship would last no longer then 5 years.

 

[her209]

Children are not typically allowed to consent to things.

Oh really? So a girl's parent can order a doctor to perform an abortion against her consent?

 

[her209]

I SAID EVERYONE!!

Why is it the federal gooberments buisness who marries whom? Leave it up to the states to decide. The fed shouldnt be making ANY civil laws, leave that up to the states.

Here's one reason why:

A man of US citizenship marries another man of non-US citizenship while he is in the US legally in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. If the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, do they deport the man with non-US citizenship once his visa expires because he's in the US illegally at that point.

 

[rozkan]

This whole debate is silly. Marriage is an establishment of traditional society, it has always been a man-woman establishment. Not to mention that there is a whole legal culture behind the establishment. People in America just want things, but never seem to think about implications of their wants. Assume you allowed a gay marriage, and assume they want to divorce, now what? Who gets to keep the child? If they fight (because they are equal in power), who gets to be blamed for domestic violence? More example can be given, point is clear.

Moreover what is the point of marriage anyway while those who support gay marriage imply that traditional society is a backward, useless thing. Why would you want to adopt an institution of traditional society? How does marriage add anything to a gay relationship? It is not like your parents or society expects/pressure you to marry anyway. The whole thing is really akin to a man wanting to enter women's restroom (and vice versa!), because we all have right to excrete.