[Jordan]

50 BUCKS says deucon does not answer the question and never comes back to this thread. Double or nothing: he changes his name for the third time and comes back as Cobcon.

[Zatoichi]

hmmm ... no bet. I just can't see me winning that one.

[Icey]

This was a parachute account? What was the previous beard?

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Do you believe that homosexual couples ought to be allowed to marry? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Yes. Mainly because I enjoy government rape and bureaucracy. More importantly though, I just don't see any harm in it, and all the people opposing it are, to me, the scum of the earth. Aside from the fact that it will allow material benefits such as: If a gay spouse is in the hospital, their spouse will be legally able to see them, make end of life and care decisions, and so forth. Should they die, their spouse will inherit their estate and recieve any benefits the government would provide for a heterosexual widow/widower. Joint health insurance coverage. Visitation rights, and so forth and so on. Also, should a gay person cheat on their spouse, a divorce would be possible where justice is done, that's a pretty big one persuant to equal protection of law which isnt currently there. Children also come into that situation and others. But, beyond that, the fact that the only people who would be angered by this are the same people who were pissed off when we stopped lynching black folks, well, any time those guys are unhappy you can be sure society is headed in the right direction. Speaking of the racism argument? A fairly recent case in my home state (50-60 years old) is the reason interracial marriage is allowed, and there was a huge issue over that as well, but it hasnt led to the destruction of marriage as an institution or to me being allowed to marry a horse, or to legally have sex with a horse, or anything. So it's clearly not that big of a deal.

And another thing about the argument against, it really does seem awfully petty considering we ostensibly allow gays full equal rights under the law. I mean, because they're not allowed to marry in most states, are gays going to just give it up and decide to listen to the crazy protesters with the signs saying "God hates fags"? They have to realize that their little bigot fantasy island is rapidly flooding with the waters of reality. They really will have to get used to it.

Oh, and Icey, Deuacon is the same person as Snake Logan and Cobnat, as per something he said on the FR IRC network.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 26 January 2011 - 04:36 AM

[Jordan]

He's also Snake Logan! Snake pissed me off and my pal (BSDFA) as well. He was just a complete troll. I don't mind Trolls, they're actually fun to toy with and do ad comic relief to the forums. But Snake was just evil.

[J m HofMarN]

Snake's time will forever be remembered (as per Spoon) as the Great Homicest of Snake Logan. Those were some funny debates and I still look back on those days affectionately. Ah, the good old Iroquois communalist defense and the westernized warmonger deal too! Those were the days.

[Jordan]

I never understood what that meant, Homicest.

[J m HofMarN]

It's ok, if you did he'd just make up a new definition for it.

[Spoon Poetic]

Awww, a raging debate and I missed all the fun cuz I thought the forums had died.
Nice to see you all getting angered again.

[civilian_number_two]

Well get in on it, girl! Do you think fags should be allowed to marry? Why or why not? Do you think allowing fags to marry will necessitate changes to other laws? Why or why not? Do you think Deucaon is alive, dead, or encased in a coccoon, later to reemerge in another, possibly less comprehensible form? Why or why not?

[J m HofMarN]

Also, do you think marriage creates bureaucracy? Should women be able to do anything other than act as baby factories? Should congressional representatives be randomly shot to keep them in line? Do you believe that it was Jordan arguing for assault rifles and CQB the whole time? And finally, why is the US army a rapist organization?

[civilian_number_two]

Salient points all.

Hey I randomly hit upon this character Jim DeMint, a senator from South Carolina. Apparently "In a 2008 interview, he said that while government does not have the right to restrict homosexuality, it also should not encourage it through legalizing same-sex marriage, due to the "costly secondary consequences" to society from the prevalence of certain diseases among homosexuals." (source Remarks to Diane Rehm, The Diane Rehm Show, National Public Radio, 31 January 2008, per wikipeida). So this is the level of debate in the United States: "I don't like this thing, so I will pretend I am trying to protect it instead. Nobody will see through a thinly-veiled paternatistic remark that is only one step removed fom telling your kid that you HOPE he loses an eye when he plays with that BB gun." This is a guy who won his seast by a landslide, a guy who says we should discourage homosexuality, for the homosexuals' own best interests, by refusing to allow gay marriage. THAT, he believes, will have the effect either of removing homosexuality altogether and thereby of removing the unhealthy promiscuity that narrow-minded conservatives, folks who have never spoken with knowledge to a gay man in their lives, are so sure is costing America millions. This guy won his seast by a landslide, a guy who uses arguments no more sophisticated than the kind that get laughed out in freshman high school debating camp.

Apparently too this guy thought gay people, as well as single-mothers who lived with their boyfriends, (??) should be ineligible to work as teachers. He also opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and promotes school prayer. So of course his argument against homosexual marriage is a humanistic, paternalistic effort to protect gays. No fear of a Christian agenda there. Every Christian politician tries to mask his church-mandated homophobia with some bullshit about Tradition or Public Health.

[Zatoichi]

Oh for Senators, my current favorite is Democratic US Senator from Arkansas Mark Pryor. In his Religulous interveiw he says with this stupid smile on his face because he thinks it's hilarious, "that you don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate though." He basically states that you don't need to be intelligent to hold a high governmental office, and that he himself won the office and wasn't very smart. Bill Maher just has this horrified look on his face afterwards.

[J m HofMarN]

"Prevalence of certain diseases among homosexuals" is the polite way of saying "aids kills fags" which, ok, it does, but it kills everyone else too, and we've known that since at least the eighties. Come on!

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah and of course if the idea is to cut down on promiscuity and to reduce disease, then one should let people enter into socially-recognized monogamous marriages. Of course with these National Prayer Breakfast types, you will get one or both of the following answers:

1. "Even if they were married, they would still be promiscuous. Those people are not interested in monogamy." (ie, gay marriage would not affect disease rates either way, which kills their whole argument.) "Allowing them to marry only gives their behaviour a pretense of social validation." (oooooohhhh kaaaaaaaayyyy .... this is insane, but that gives it the strength of being irrefutable: if we outlaw gay marriage then more fags and dykes will enter into sham heterosexual marriages, eventually turn straight, and love Jesus. Honestly); and/or

2. "Those people are not interested in marrying. They only want the right to so that they can destroy/ denigrate/ cheapen/ whatever the institution of marriage." (ie, there is a national gay terrorist conspiracy to destroy Christianity by targeting marriage. This is similarly irrefutable, especially when voice by and to paranoid assholes, but it has an interesting kind of perverse parity: these folks actually think that gay marriage will make their own heterosexual marriages weaker. The glue holding them together is hatred and control of the gay population).

These guys who talk all the time about those people usually have never met any of those people, and so they have to go by what they remember from the last bit of pop-culture media they are aware of. So yeah, apparently fags get AIDS. Never mind that epidemic is well under control in that community and that the main risk associated with promiscuity is and always has been unexpected pregnancy, a problem exclusively associated with heterosexual sex. And never mind that unexpected pregnancy is on the rise, as their oft-cited abortion figures will attest (dykes only have abortions when they are raped; straight girls have abortions when they have one too many vodka gimlets; fags never have or necessitate abortions). Never mind all that. What's important is that these guys talk about those people not wanting the thing they're fighting for the same way their counterparts used to say that blacks and women didn't really want the vote, they're just trying to stir up trouble. How about instead of trying to speak for people they've never met, they just let them speak for themselves and just, for once, try to listen?

Still no word from Deuc? Maybe he started taking the pills. I hear they work!

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 31 January 2011 - 02:15 PM