View Single Post
Unread 31 Jul 2006, 14:28   #9
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Lesbians get nailed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I'm not sure about "should", but I can see their point. The argument (from both sides, as far as I can tell) is that marriage has a long and rich tradition and has lots of implied meanings and values that go along with just the word. One side wants to be able to get "married" for exactly the same reasons the other side don't want them to.
You're just going to end up with people using a version of the NTS fallacy anyways. "Marriage is between a man and a woman." "But wait my friend dave is married to a guy." "Ah, but that's not a true marriage." And the idiocy will be perpetuated. If you're going to cause a change in the social substructure and the way we consider same-sex relationships you're going to need to start off teaching children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that gay people aren't some terrible group of heathens out to get their souls.

Quote:
Why is that distinction a useful one (aside from somehow "protecting" the tradition of marriage from the evil gays)? Why on Earth do we want to have different laws / regulations for different groups/people (except where such a distinction is rational)?
It's not. It's fairly pedantic. But then again 975% of the rest of the law is so it doesn't really reveal any hidden bias or anything. To be honest I don't really find the legal term marriage useful as I don't think the state should play a role in defining relationships. If two people choose to live together then they can call it a ****ing discotheque for all I care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deffeh
Indeed it is indicative of underlying social problems; but im not sure how religious and sexual orientation divides are not so similar?
Well, you have groups you literally want different things up there. One group wants to be part of the Britain, one group wants to be part of Ireland. That's a real social problem (unless like me you advocate the existence of a world state, and I use that term in the loosest way possible, which makes such distinctions the height of irrelevancy).

Quote:
By balance; (which might not have been the right word) the way i see things is.. imagine 2d graph with loads of points plotted on it... then draw a line of best fit. Consider that "policy". And then consider the slightly extreme / almost wayward points as "controllers" rather than anomalies.

Im going to stop now because im going to confuse myself but do you understand what im saying
I really, really don't

Are you saying we should compromise with people who think gay people should be burnt at the stake?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote