Ukip Banned From London Pride Parade, But Organisers Say Decision Is Not 'Politically Motivated' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;47906575] The roundness of the earth is also a scientifically verifiable fact. Sadly, the best form of marriage for society isn't that kind of fact. I mean, come on, at least try to think these attempts at witty mockery through before posting them.[/QUOTE] Letting straight people marry but not gay people is scientifically verifiable as unequal

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47908797]Letting straight people marry but not gay people is scientifically verifiable as unequal[/QUOTE] Also, just because you think you can't verify the facts doesn't mean that the burden of proof is on homosexuals. If you think they shouldn't be married, it is up to you to prove that it causes damage. Things generally don't just start out banned just because we "can't verify" them.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47908797]Letting straight people marry but not gay people is scientifically verifiable as unequal[/QUOTE] So?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911496]So?[/QUOTE] So thousands of innocent people are objectively worse off because of some 80 year old cretins illogical, outdated hatred.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47911505]So thousands of innocent people are objectively worse off because of some 80 year old cretins illogical, outdated hatred.[/QUOTE] Well that's framing things in a negative light at the outset, how are they worse off? Because the state has no practical need to recognize that their butt-buddies?

[QUOTE=wauterboi;47909688]Also, just because you think you can't verify the facts doesn't mean that the burden of proof is on homosexuals. If you think they shouldn't be married, it is up to you to prove that it causes damage. Things generally don't just start out banned just because we "can't verify" them.[/QUOTE] The natural state of all mankind is marriage being between men and women. It's been the accepted norm across every type of culture around the globe. The argument is to change that, and the burden of proof always lies on the person trying to change things when it comes to social policy. You don't start from a zero point every time anyone brings up a new idea. You start where we are now and argue from there. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;47908797]Letting straight people marry but not gay people is scientifically verifiable as unequal[/QUOTE] Agreed. It's a good thing that gay people are allowed to get married. Marriage law is, and should be, gender blind, just like it's race blind.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47906575]****It's not very loving to push sexual minorities opinion on the rest of society based on personal gripes.**** NOTE: THIS IS SARCASM See what I did there? I've safely ignored the actual arguments that you've made by shrinking your entire opinion down to a stupid and petty personal gripe. Let's be clear: I don't think your opinion is based on a personal gripe. I just wanted to show how easy it is to dismiss literally everyone else who disagrees with you if your starting point is that everyone else is stupid and evil.[/QUOTE] Man, how can you give me shit for "ignoring" actual arguments when you ignored me very clearly saying that civic rights aren't based on personal opinions. Cool lecture. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911515]Well that's framing things in a negative light at the outset, how are they worse off? Because the state has no practical need to recognize that their butt-buddies?[/QUOTE] Am I in a South Park episode now?

[QUOTE=thisispain;47911542]Am I in a South Park episode now?[/QUOTE] Genuine question, what does anyone else gain by officially recognizing that two gay dudes are in a relationship?

[QUOTE=thisispain;47911542]Man, how can you give me shit for "ignoring" actual arguments when you ignored me very clearly saying that civic rights aren't based on personal opinions. Cool lecture[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how this relates to the comment you quoted. You previously said, "Not very loving to deny sexual minorities their civic rights simply because of a personal gripe." I responded by pointing out that by minimizing their arguments to nothing more than a "personal gripe" you've already dismissed them without actually addressing what they've said. How exactly did I say that you didn't believe it wasn't based on opinions? I mean, it's obvious that you believe those who disagree with you are basing their beliefs on nothing more than personal opinions, but I'm assuming that's not what you mean. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] With that said, no one is denying anyone their civic rights because there is no right to marriage, and gay people already have the right to get married anyway. You won't find anything in marriage law talking about gender.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911554]Genuine question, what does anyone else gain by officially recognizing that two gay dudes are in a relationship?[/QUOTE] Hm, I'm trying to think about it. What would we as a society gain by officiating the marriage of two people of the same gender?

[QUOTE=thisispain;47911595]Hm, I'm trying to think about it. What would we as a society gain by officiating the marriage of two people of the same gender?[/QUOTE] Let me know when you've thought of something, because I sure as hell can't.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911599]Let me know when you've thought of something, because I sure as hell can't.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's a real difficult concept.

[QUOTE=thisispain;47911607]Yeah, it's a real difficult concept.[/QUOTE] Care to share something with us?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911599]Let me know when you've thought of something, because I sure as hell can't.[/QUOTE] Their agreement to live as a family unit, thus be taxed as such and provide parenthood for a child equally as such. But hey, thanks for putting down marriage to just two people wanting to fuck each other.

[QUOTE=gufu;47911615]Their agreement to live as a family unit, thus be taxed as such and provide parenthood for a child equally as such. But hey, thanks for putting down marriage to just two people wanting to fuck each other.[/QUOTE] All gay couples can promise is a child that's missing one of their biological parents, not exactly the most effective way to raise the next generation. Besides, barely any gays go through the trouble to begin with, recognizing gay marriage is essentially slapping a big congratulations on someone's romantic relationship.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911636]All gay couples can promise is a child that's missing one of their biological parents, not exactly the most effective way to raise the next generation.[/QUOTE] Bullshit, there is no biological requirement for a genetic parent, just social ones, as this has been historically proven. Equally, there isn't a gender-limited parent roles, especially in development of the child - even if some try to go for "but what if the child needs same-sex parent for explanation of their physical and sexual development". In such cases, parent of any gender should be capable of providing answers through informational sources. Just like a heterosexual family. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911636]Besides, barely any gays go through the trouble to begin with, recognizing gay marriage is essentially slapping a big congratulations on someone's romantic relationship.[/QUOTE] It's rather difficult to get through it by itself, in addition to the fact that gay couples cannot get married. The cause (people cannot be legally stated as a family) and effect (Many gay couples are unable to adopt). Thus, in fact, this would allow for greater adoption rate.

[QUOTE=gufu;47911682]Bullshit, there is no biological requirement for a genetic parent, just social ones, as this has been historically proven. Equally, there isn't a gender-limited parent roles, especially in development of the child - even if some try to go for "but what if the child needs same-sex parent for explanation of their physical and sexual development". In such cases, parent of any gender should be capable of providing answers through informational sources. Just like a heterosexual family.[/QUOTE] It's been "historically proven" that there are absolutely no biological preferences for children to be raised by their genetic parents? What does that even mean? Also there's a hell of a lat more to parenting than expounding information about puberty, kids don't really care what information their parents hand down to them as long as they're treated with love and discipline (at least up until a certain age), administering both requires the combined efforts of a man and a woman. Yeah sure a "father" could act like a "mother" or vice versa in theory, but in the end either gender role comes more naturally to its respective gender. At the very least heterosexual parents would be more efficient in not only having kids but effectively raising them. [QUOTE]It's rather difficult to get through it by itself, in addition to the fact that gay couples cannot get married. The cause (people cannot be legally stated as a family) and effect (Many gay couples are unable to adopt). Thus, in fact, this would allow for greater adoption rate.[/QUOTE] It's especially difficult for homosexuals because they need to introduce an entirely external third party, the truth of the matter remains that most homosexuals simply aren't having children, making their "marriages" the equivalent of a couple going steady with the government's seal of approval.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911713]administering both requires the combined efforts of a man and a woman. Yeah sure a "father" could act like a "mother" or vice versa in theory, but in the end either gender role comes more naturally to its respective gender. At the very least heterosexual parents would be more efficient in not only having kids but effectively raising them.[/quote] How do you even measure "efficiency" of a parenthood, really? Nurture and Nature is a still an ongoing debate. And since either way an individual is given a loving house, it doesn't matter, especially since the kids who are being adopted didn't have a loving house in the first place, and were in fact, produced by a man and a woman who were "not efficient" as parents. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911713]It's especially difficult for homosexuals because they need to introduce an entirely external third party, the truth of the matter remains that most homosexuals simply aren't having children, making their "marriages" the equivalent of a couple going steady with the government's seal of approval.[/QUOTE] It's up to the family to decide if they want children and how they will end up with them, meaning that the concept of family (and you have in fact ignored the whole tax, insurance, and other legal works that are important in our modern society) is still important to homosexual couples.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47911527] Agreed. It's a good thing that gay people are allowed to get married. Marriage law is, and should be, gender blind, just like it's race blind.[/QUOTE] Then why have you been arguing against it for two pages? [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911515]Well that's framing things in a negative light at the outset, how are they worse off? Because the state has no practical need to recognize that their butt-buddies?[/QUOTE] Are you unaware of the fact that marriage has hundreds of various financial advantages

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47911770]Then why have you been arguing against it for two pages?[/QUOTE] I've argued against same-sex marriage, not gay people getting married. There's currently nothing, in any state, that bars gay people from getting married. Keeping marriage between a man and a woman is totally gender blind. We're talking about adding same-sex relationships to what constitutes a marriage, not about whether gay people have the right to be married.

[QUOTE=gufu;47911751]How do you even measure "efficiency" of a parenthood, really? Nurture and Nature is a still an ongoing debate. And since either way an individual is given a loving house, it doesn't matter, especially since the kids who are being adopted didn't have a loving house in the first place, and were in fact, produced by a man and a woman who were "not efficient" as parents.[/QUOTE] It's pretty obvious I'm using efficiency in a more qualitative sense, heterosexual parents fall more naturally into the roles of mother and father, where-as one member of a homosexual couple would have to act against their natural inclinations in order to raise the child properly. Also nature vs nurture isn't a binary, in many cases they lead to each other. I'm not talking about adoption as I see that as the only semi-justifiable methods by-which homosexuals can obtain children. [QUOTE]It's up to the family to decide if they want children and how they will end up with them, meaning that the concept of family (and you have in fact ignored the whole tax, insurance, and other legal works that are important in our modern society) is still important to homosexual couples.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but it's pretty obvious that the purpose of a family is to have children, that is why heterosexuals exclusively got those benefits before (since they were like, raising the next generation and stuff). Now thanks to the legalization of contraception it looks like we're instead relying on immigration, but that's a whole other can of worms. It strikes me as a kind of adolescent view of marriage to simply complain about one group getting benefits when you're not, even though your group is clearly more limited in its utility to the state in comparison to the other. [QUOTE=Zeke129;47911770]Are you unaware of the fact that marriage has hundreds of various financial advantages[/QUOTE] My point is that homosexual relationships yield nothing of value to the state for the most part and thus the state has no practical reason to give them special treatment.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47911786]I've argued against same-sex marriage, not gay people getting married. There's currently nothing, in any state, that bars gay people from getting married. It's totally blind to gender. We're talking about adding same-sex relationships to what constitutes a marriage, not about whether gay people have the right to be married.[/QUOTE] So, in technicality, how does the creation of duplicate marriage for Same-Sex couples is different from simply changing the existing definition of marriage?

Bigfatworm, are you going to run from this argument when a tough statement comes up like you always do

[QUOTE=sgman91;47911786]I've argued against same-sex marriage, not gay people getting married. There's currently nothing, in any state, that bars gay people from getting married. It's totally blind to gender. We're talking about adding same-sex relationships to what constitutes a marriage, not about whether gay people have the right to be married.[/QUOTE] After the post I quoted I was going to ask [i]"sgman91, are you seriously attempting to say that gay people are not discriminated against because they have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex?"[/i], but then I took a step back and gave you the benefit of the doubt because I refused to believe that anyone capable of turning on a PC, navigating to facepunch, and posting would make an argument like that. I was wrong, apparently.

[QUOTE=gufu;47911802]So, in technicality, how does the creation of duplicate marriage for Same-Sex couples is different from simply changing the existing definition of marriage?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify your question for me? [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;47911811]After the post I quoted I was going to ask [I]"sgman91, are you seriously attempting to say that gay people are not discriminated against because they have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex?"[/I], but then I took a step back and gave you the benefit of the doubt because I refused to believe that anyone capable of turning on a PC, navigating to facepunch, and posting would make an argument like that. I was wrong, apparently.[/QUOTE] Am I wrong in what I said? Where in the law is there any mention of gender?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911795] My point is that homosexual relationships yield nothing of value to the state for the most part and thus the state has no practical reason to give them special treatment.[/QUOTE] They yield exactly the same value that heterosexual relationships do. [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;47911817] Am I wrong in what I said? Where in the law is there any mention of gender?[/QUOTE] What are you even talking about at this point

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47911820] What are you even talking about at this point[/QUOTE] I'm just responding to you, nothing more. You made the point that not letting gay people get married is factually unequal, and I agreed with you. The point is that no one makes that argument.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47911820]They yield exactly the same value that heterosexual relationships do.[/QUOTE] Heterosexual relationships make a whole lot more babies than homosexual ones, that's a pretty important difference (making sure the next generation exists is within the state's interests).

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911832]Heterosexual relationships make a whole lot more babies than homosexual ones, that's a pretty important difference (making sure the next generation exists is within the state's interests).[/QUOTE] straight people aren't going to just turn gay and stop having babies if gay people can marry and if you think that then you're seriously delusional

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47911837]straight people aren't going to just turn gay and stop having babies if gay people can marry and if you think that then you're seriously delusional[/QUOTE] If that was my concern this statement woudl actually be relevant to the discussion.