Prop 8 Striked down in california, allowing gay marriage - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Billiam;23841521]What the fuck. Why would the government give an incentive to reproduce? People make babies anyway and we're brimming with people who want to enter the country, that's fucking stupid. Besides, why should the government be in charge of curbing your lifestyle, that's pretty goddamn stupid too. If you're going to give tax breaks to straight couples who marry, give them to gay couples too who marry too, simple as that.[/QUOTE] Why would the government give an incentive to reproduce? I think you mean, why does the government give an incentive to reproduce. Seems to have worked fairly well so far. [QUOTE]I think you missed the point of the comparison.[/QUOTE] Everything is objective if you have common sense with you. A long time ago it was declared illegal to run people over in the streets. You could ask why the person who declared it illegal did so, and what his bias was. It's obviously stupid to do so, because it's not a contentious issue in the slightest. Hence why it's just an obvious red herring. [QUOTE]Bitch about a person not voting on something, person wasn't able to at the time, then proceed to be smug about it. Flawless victory. [/QUOTE] Glad you think so.

Are you still talking?

[QUOTE=Vinze;23841564][IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=174572&dateline=1270021148[/IMG] People who brags about it, are normally pricks :colbert:.[/QUOTE] Or maybe I just didn't like having the default avatar.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841639]Why would the government give an incentive to reproduce? I think you mean, why does the government give an incentive to reproduce. Seems to have worked fairly well so far. Everything is objective if you have common sense with you. A long time ago it was declared illegal to run people over in the streets. You could ask why the person who declared it illegal did so, and what his bias was. It's obviously stupid to do so, because it's not a contentious issue in the slightest. Hence why it's just an obvious red herring. Glad you think so.[/QUOTE] Objectivity is an objective concept. Objectivity is an impossibility in reality because nothing can objectively be a certain way due to the flaws in perception. Also, your argument is so full of shit i'm surprised I can't sme-there it is...

[QUOTE=Kybalt;23841579]marriage has nothing to do with making babies at all. there is absolutely zero fucking reason a couple's ability to reproduce should have any sort of effect on whether or not they can marry. if you disagree, do give me an example reason why i'm wrong.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this, marriage should be a benefit to the couple, not to society or the government or any bullcrap like that.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841639]Everything is objective if you have common sense with you. A long time ago it was declared illegal to run people over in the streets. You could ask why the person who declared it illegal did so, and what his bias was. It's obviously stupid to do so, because it's not a contentious issue in the slightest. Hence why it's just an obvious red herring.[/QUOTE] There is literally no argument in this. You just said that everything is objective but some things aren't but everyone agrees on them so we make them laws. It's like you have a 3-year-old's grasp on the issue. COMPLETELY REGARDLESS of whether there is any contention on the law the law gives some people more rights than others. It's a tyranny of the majority that has no place in any decent society.

Someone tell me where Republicans get off on this whole "small government" bullshit, but have people like Morcam who resemble the entire party and their bullshit socially conservative views.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23841618]Morcam, the republican arguing for MORE government invasion in the average persons life. Oh the irony.[/QUOTE] The government knows the gender of you and your spouse. They also know if you have children. That's all the "Invasion" I've argued for.

It's not small government, it's government keeping their hands out of people's pockets so they can focus on putting it in people's social lives.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841691]The government knows the gender of you and your spouse. They also know if you have children. That's all the "Invasion" I've argued for.[/QUOTE] You're so thick... You're arguing for the violation of gays rights, you're arguing for the violation of privacy rights, you're arguing for a [b]different[/b] meaning to marriage and what it really is. Your argument is so full of holes, it doesn't fucking exist.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;23841676]There is literally no argument in this. You just said that everything is objective but some things aren't but everyone agrees on them so we make them laws. It's like you have a 3-year-old's grasp on the issue. COMPLETELY REGARDLESS of whether there is any contention on the law the law gives some people more rights than others. It's a tyranny of the majority that has no place in any decent society.[/QUOTE] Everything is objective. When a majority agrees on something it happens. I think both republicans and democrats can agree that running people over is wrong. 90% of the other laws out there are the same way. I'm actually rather surprised at how blown out of proportion this has become. I said I could see where PvtCupcakes was coming from and suddenly I'm priority target #1. Rather humorous, really.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841639]Why would the government give an incentive to reproduce? I think you mean, why does the government give an incentive to reproduce. Seems to have worked fairly well so far.[/QUOTE] People are going to fuck regardless, you don't need people in suits to tell you to do so, name a successful species that isn't wired to breed. Also yeah, this incentive for straight people thing has seemed to work pretty well, except for this civil rights issue we've been arguing about. :rolleyes: [QUOTE=Morcam;23841639]Everything is objective if you have common sense with you. A long time ago it was declared illegal to run people over in the streets. You could ask why the person who declared it illegal did so, and what his bias was. It's obviously stupid to do so, because it's not a contentious issue in the slightest. Hence why it's just an obvious red herring.[/QUOTE] You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. [QUOTE=Morcam;23841639]Glad you think so.[/QUOTE] Actually, I was being sarcastic, but I would understand if you didn't get it because your comprehension skills seem to be awfully low.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23841710]You're so thick... You're arguing for the violation of gays rights, you're arguing for the violation of privacy rights, you're arguing for a [b]different[/b] meaning to marriage and what it really is. Your argument is so full of holes, it doesn't fucking exist.[/QUOTE] Well put

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841691]The government knows the gender of you and your spouse. They also know if you have children. That's all the "Invasion" I've argued for.[/QUOTE] It's pretty funny, I recall a lot of stuff about you supporting curbing lifestyles and stuff about how we all shouldn't be viewed equal under the law. Are you not reading what you type?

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841746]Everything is objective. When a majority agrees on something it happens.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority[/url] I find it amusing that you insinuated I don't understand the Constitution when you clearly have no clue what the Bill of Rights was created for.

[QUOTE=Billiam;23841663]Pretty much this, marriage should be a benefit to the couple, not to society or the government or any bullcrap like that.[/QUOTE] That's a very idealistic view of the world, and I would seriously love it if everything worked like that. More specifically, I would love it if we were each allowed to live out our lives as we saw fit to any extent. Everything you do impacts society, though, and that includes gay marriage, you having children, and so on and so forth. I already said I agree with gay marriage, just not with the same tax breaks as straight couples. I suppose I can see how it would be fair for marriage to be a purely emotional union, but the fact is that it just isn't. People respond to incentives, in every shape and form. Marriage has been opposite-sex for hundreds of years now. I don't see a problem with extending civil unions to same-sex couples, but I don't see how the two should inherently be the same action.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841746]Everything is objective. When a majority agrees on something it happens. I think both republicans and democrats can agree that running people over is wrong. 90% of the other laws out there are the same way.[/QUOTE] Sorry brudda, that's not how it's suppose to work, not sure if you live in the U.S. anymore. [QUOTE=Morcam;23841746]I'm actually rather surprised at how blown out of proportion this has become. I said I could see where PvtCupcakes was coming from and suddenly I'm priority target #1. Rather humorous, really.[/QUOTE] Sometimes, people who don't really think about what they say often, inadvertently they say something stupid and people get mad. Usually someone corrects them, then we go about with our day, but you've actually been saying more stupid stuff afterward. [editline]03:07AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;23841803]That's a very idealistic view of the world, and I would seriously love it if everything worked like that. More specifically, I would love it if we were each allowed to live out our lives as we saw fit to any extent. Everything you do impacts society, though, and that includes gay marriage, you having children, and so on and so forth. I already said I agree with gay marriage, just not with the same tax breaks as straight couples. I suppose I can see how it would be fair for marriage to be a purely emotional union, but the fact is that it just isn't. People respond to incentives, in every shape and form. Marriage has been opposite-sex for hundreds of years now. I don't see a problem with extending civil unions to same-sex couples, but I don't see how the two should inherently be the same action.[/QUOTE] Go start a fascist dictatorship or something. America is not for you. If you're going to toss away the concept of equality under the law because you're seeking a society that does what will strengthen them as oppose to what they believe in as a people, then go somewhere else. The United States is built on the very concept that a person could go out and live their life how they saw fit and that they would be treated equally, so long as they didn't infringe on another person's rights. If you're going to throw away this right, you might as well throw away the next, because in one way or another a right may interfere with achieving a "perfect" society. It's a logical approach, but if you look at it from the standpoint of the framers of the Constitution, then it isn't a very good approach.

[QUOTE=Billiam;23841809]Go start a fascist dictatorship or something. America is not for you.[/QUOTE] Good to see you know I'm not a republican!

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841874]Good to see you know I'm not a republican![/QUOTE] No, you're just a social conservative with no idea what the real world looks like.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841803]That's a very idealistic view of the world, and I would seriously love it if everything worked like that. More specifically, I would love it if we were each allowed to live out our lives as we saw fit to any extent. Everything you do impacts society, though, and that includes gay marriage, you having children, and so on and so forth. I already said I agree with gay marriage, just not with the same tax breaks as straight couples. I suppose I can see how it would be fair for marriage to be a purely emotional union, but the fact is that it just isn't. People respond to incentives, in every shape and form. [b]Marriage has been opposite-sex for hundreds of years now.[/b] I don't see a problem with extending civil unions to same-sex couples, but I don't see how the two should inherently be the same action.[/QUOTE] How is that an argument? If there are churches willing to marry people - then we should allow them to.

[QUOTE=siberpredaht;23841905]How is that an argument? If there are churches willing to marry people - then we should allow them to.[/QUOTE] I think you just took that sentence completely out of context. I'm not talking religiously at all. Religions can marry whoever they choose. That's the emotional part. I'm talking about the actual government-sanction, which isn't emotional or religious at all. Apparently some people like to view it that way, which I think I covered in my first or second post in here.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841425] Also, I'm not religious. [/QUOTE] There are a few different reasons why someone would be against gay marriage. They are: - They're religious - They're ignorant - They're a bigot In all situations that person needs to pick two from that list.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841923]I think you just took that sentence completely out of context. I'm not talking religiously at all. Religions can marry whoever they choose. That's the emotional part. I'm talking about the actual government-sanction, which isn't emotional or religious at all. Apparently some people like to view it that way, which I think I covered in my first or second post in here.[/QUOTE] I'm just curious why you believe that gay couples shouldn't get the same tax breaks as straight?

[QUOTE=siberpredaht;23841974]I'm just curious why you believe that gay couples shouldn't get the same tax breaks as straight?[/QUOTE] Your rights are based on your contribution to society apparently.

[QUOTE=siberpredaht;23841974]I'm just curious why you believe that gay couples shouldn't get the same tax breaks as straight?[/QUOTE] No kids, apparently the sole reason for marriage is for child benefits and tax breaks. Of course, that's a load of horse shit even at a legal level.

There are plenty of unwanted children. Go look at an orphanage. (not arguing with you doods btw, just Morcam)

[QUOTE=Billiam;23841982]Your rights are based on your contribution to society apparently.[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume by the way you phrased that that you have no idea what I said in my earlier posts. [editline]03:27AM[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23841989]No kids, apparently the sole reason for marriage is for child benefits and tax breaks. Of course, that's a load of horse shit even at a legal level.[/QUOTE] You're in the same boat as Billiam. I already said repeatedly that child benefits would apply for both gay and straight parents with children, including if they adopted them. I was talking about incentives, not rewards.

Well this is gay.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23842051]I'm going to assume by the way you phrased that that you have no idea what I said in my earlier posts. [editline]03:27AM[/editline] You're in the same boat as Billiam.[/QUOTE] To be fair, you need to work on formulating your arguments better. You type a lot but you don't get to a specific point. You also make a huge effort of making it so people can't dispute you, making it sound like you're contradicting yourself in some places..

[QUOTE=siberpredaht;23842080]To be fair, you need to work on formulating your arguments better. You type a lot but you don't get to a specific point. You also make a huge effort of making it so people can't dispute you, making it sound like you're contradicting yourself in some places..[/QUOTE] It's really mostly that I've stretched out all my points through multiple people. If you don't go back and read them all you'll really have no idea of the background to what I'm saying is. I'm not saying that you need to, at least you're not trying to tear my throat out.