Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[Ryantology]

I really do not care what they do in their bedrooms. I don't care, really. I tend not to think about it too much for it to affect my judgement.
There are a lot of things that are a lot more disgusting and are done by straight people. Even by those who are married. However the institution of marriage is bound by traditions. Whether you like it or not. It is bound by traditions.

Tradition is ephemeral. We give up traditions all the time. We alter them to suit evolved sensibilities all the time. We establish new ones all the time. Marriage is no exception. The world hasn't ended yet.

You people are liberals, anti-culture, anti-tradition. The only reason you support marriage is to destroy the said traditions. Because after you do, marriage won't be relevant anymore, as the values associated with marriage won't be relevant anymore.

I am definitely a liberal. I'm not anti-culture in the slightest, I simply view culture in an honest way: it is fluid. It evolves. I am not so petty as to target anything specifically because it is a tradition, but I hold no traditions to be sacred. If they are useless, they should be discarded. If they are repressive, they should be eliminated. If they can be expanded to include others when there is absolutely no good reason to exclude others, they should be expanded. Gay marriage is not going anywhere. It is going to catch on worldwide sooner or later. Future generations are going to look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, the same way people today wonder what all the fuss was about over those who claimed that interracial marriage would destroy the institution and ruin everything forever. Those people are quaint throwbacks to a more ignorant and hateful period of human history. So are you.

Just like Marx hated marriage, just like he viewed it with scorn, just as leftists once have created communes where marriage was non-existent, and children were treated as "common property" and were taken care of in turns, where the concepts of "mother" and "father" were abolished, you want this to apply to today's society, because only in such a society will your fluffy liberal dream come true. But "gay marriage" will never be marriage. It will only be a distorted, bastardized, and twisted form of marriage that only has the legal benefits of marriage, devoid of its characteristics.

All your opinion, nothing more. And who cares what you think? I don't recall anybody asking you to marry another man.

And the fact that you use things like "love" and "equality" to mask your intentions is really funny.

You wouldn't know what love or equality was if they punched you in the vagina.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

And I have not stated that allowing homosexuals to marry would make you divorce your wife, no, but it would harm marriage as a social institution, and as an institution that is the basis of the family, by incorporating people that are not a part of the said institutions. And therefore, society will suffer, and moral decay is on the rise. As optimistic mysanthrope a few replies back naively suggested, even heterosexual marriages are being slowly eroded by the moral decay of our times, and liberals, not concerned about the real family institution arising from the union of a man and a woman, are pushing for gays to have a moral upper hand, as though as they were "more deserving" than those who actually upheld the marital institution and created its traditions throughout the millenia, the traditional, heterosexual couples.

You know, it's funny how often "moral decay" = tolerance and "family values" = discrimination. It's almost as if intolerant, discriminating arseholes are using those terms as an excuse to push their bigoted opinions on everyone else

Refutation for what? You didn't make any points to refute. Slavery was a tradtion, and it was abolished, not reformed, nor turned into something else. Traditions are either carried on, or are abandoned according to circumstances.

Except, of course, that traditions do change over time. Others are abandoned. Unless you're suggesting that all traditions should be continued, regardless of their nature, the mere fact that something is traditional is insufficient to justify it's continuation. To do otherwise is to invoke special pleading. That is what you have to refute if you wish to keep using tradition as an argument.

So either do away with marriage, which I'd not advise, or give homosexuals a seperate, legal existance, that is different from that of marriage, which has other aspects beyond legality.

But if you're happy to give the same legal rights to homosexual couples as are afforded to heterosexual couples without children, why do you need to give it a different name when it's the same thing?

I gave you an answer already. The marital institution was established to encourage child bearing and child raising within a social and legal contract called marriage. Any examples, like people who are infertile or do not want children, are fringe examples. They are not affecting the overall picture, neither the purpose of marriage.

So why afford it to one "fringe group" and not another? The effects upon those couples are the same.

No it is sufficient because the said values were carried on to the modern age via traditions. So traditions are the only valid argument here. The fact that you, or someone else refuses to accept them does not change the fact that they exist, nor that they create the basis of society.
Since homosexuals, as a minority as they exist today, were never considered during the establisment of these traditions, they cannot lay claim to institutions that are bound by those traditions. By "cannot" I state that their claims are in fact, not legitimate.

Replace the word "homosexuals" with "slaves" and your argument sounds no less bigoted. I have already told you why tradition is not a valid argument, it's just special pleading. "Those traditions can be abandoned, not this one. Why? Because it's tradition!" Can't you see how ridiculous that stance is?

Society has built the institution of the family upon the institution of marriage. Family values and stability can only be provided by people who actually fit the said quota.

That's an assertion, care to back it up? Whilst your at it, explain why homosexuals couples can't have family values. If they were raised in your utopian family unit, they should certainly know what family values are, right? Explain why they can't pass on those values. Actually, before you do that, why don't you explain those values are?

You deliberately distort my words. As I said, there is an ideal of a family and an ideal of a marriage, which is why there are values that are associated with it.

I did nothing of the sort. There was a hole in your argument, I went for it. I distorted nothing.

On the other hand, lets look at a married couple with children.
A good example of a family, where there is flexibility. People can share the burden as it fits them, and can create a less problematic family that offers a child both a father, and a mother figure.
If that is not worthy of propagating, I don't know what is.

I completely agree. Now explain why a homosexual couple can't provide the same. See if you can do it without using the word "tradition", or derivation thereof.

As for adoptions, they are mostly an option for couples who are infertile. There are of course people who out of compassion, choose to adopt children while having a biological child on their own. They contribute to society in either way. One does it by adding a new member, the other is unable to do so by misfortune, and sponsors a new member that has been abandoned by his lifegivers either by a tragedy or otherwise.

It's a separate, but related issue. Why can't SSM's do the same? Surely it's better for a child to be in a safe, loving family home than an orphanage or foster system?

Well, if you mean by change that we're approaching A BRAVE NEW WORLD, I can't really understand why I'm still discussing marriage wth you.

Really? I would have thought that the coming technology would be extraordinarily pertinent to the subject. The technology is on it's way, like it or not. Same sex couples will be able to reproduce and there's not much you can do about it. That being the case, I would have thought that someone with such a high regard for family values would want to ensure that those same values are given to those children. Excluding the parents of those children from the very institutions which you claim so vital for values to take root, would strike me as being counter-productive at best.

Marriage comes with a set of responsibilities that you must fulfill.
First is fidelity, being true to your spouse, second is to provide for your spouse if you're working party in the marriage, or take care of the household if you don't work, third is to look after your children, and present them with means to look after themselves until they get old enough to do so.

All of these responsiblities are loaded on to the married parties by society and the state which sponsors the marital institution.
People who find themselves overwhelmed by these responsibilities often divorce each other. If you're not a person that can accept these responsibilities, you're probably still a child.

Wrong. Relationships come with a set of responsibilities that you should fulfil. The number of failed relationships and dysfunctional families should indicate that this doesn't always happen. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it is a separate issue and has bugger all to with sexuality.

It was also inseparable form smallpox until 1977. You'll have to do better than that.

So you mean to tell me that your purpose is to eradicate marriage then?

Don't be stupid. It was an example to illustrate that you can't hold something as sacred simply because it has been prevalent though out the history of civilisation. I could just as easily have used religion as an example. Or slavery, war, rape or any number of other insalubrious examples.

As I said, its duty is to minimize random sexual relations that could result in a child. Its doing its part.

No, it really isn't. If it was, then we wouldn't be facing an overpopulation crisis.

Yes a minority, dispersed across the globe. Their fraternitisations are local. However if they want to fraternatize globally, lets give them their own piece of land, where they can live and enact their own laws and establish their own institutions. Although they already have their own country, I think it was called Sweden or something.

Not a bad idea. Then we could get ourselves some sexy uniforms, reclaim the Sudetenland and......and........oh, wait. This is starting to sound a bit familiar.

Just like Marx hated marriage, just like he viewed it with scorn, just as leftists once have created communes where marriage was non-existent, and children were treated as "common property" and were taken care of in turns, where the concepts of "mother" and "father" were abolished, you want this to apply to today's society, because only in such a society will your fluffy liberal dream come true. But "gay marriage" will never be marriage. It will only be a distorted, bastardized, and twisted form of marriage that only has the legal benefits of marriage, devoid of its characteristics.
And the fact that you use things like "love" and "equality" to mask your intentions is really funny.

Trust me, I despise Marx a damn sight more than he despised marriage. I do think families are important. I do think family values are important, but we clearly don't have the same opinion on what those values actually are.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Tradition is ephemeral. We give up traditions all the time. We alter them to suit evolved sensibilities all the time. We establish new ones all the time. Marriage is no exception. The world hasn't ended yet.

Well, give up the tradition of marriage, then. Abolish marriage, or uphold its values. However you do not want to abolish marriage, but instead abolish all of its values. It can't be done.
Its akin to the creation of a stuffed animal. You kill the animal, you remove its internal organs, and you stuff the empty skin with unrelated material. In the end, the animal will look as though it were alive, but it will be nothing but a shell filled with ballast.

I am definitely a liberal. I'm not anti-culture in the slightest, I simply view culture in an honest way: it is fluid.

Indeed. But how you want it to flow is to turn the stream upside down. You want it to flow in the opposite direction.

I am not so petty as to target anything specifically because it is a tradition, but I hold no traditions to be sacred.

Well, I guess you won't have any troubles when someone abolishes the traditions regarding the excessive liberties in your country.

If they are useless, they should be discarded. If they are repressive, they should be eliminated.

I agree. However I do not find the traditions of marriage nor family to be repressive, nor useless. You do, for you see in them a moral highground that opposes things such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, drug use, drunkardness, laziness and excessive individualism.

The only people who feel repressed by the current notions and traditions of marriage are those who are being told that they do not fit the criteria of marriage. You simply want to lower the moral criteria, or abolish it completely. IT has nothing to do with it being useless.

If they can be expanded to include others when there is absolutely no good reason to exclude others, they should be expanded.

I think marriage has reached the limits of how much more it can be expanded. Further "expansion" will only make it burst. It is like a balloon, filled with air. The traditions make up its frame, and the people who get married, and have children are the air. You simply wish to inject more air, while removing portions of the frame, lowering its maximum capacity. It will burst.

It is going to catch on worldwide sooner or later. Future generations are going to look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, the same way people today wonder what all the fuss was about over those who claimed that interracial marriage would destroy the institution and ruin everything forever. Those people are quaint throwbacks to a more ignorant and hateful period of human history. So are you.

You mean to tell me that this "hateful period" lasted for thousands of years where gays were not allowed to get married. And for as long as marriage existed, gays were not a part of it. Hell, they were not even part of society. Anno GM, I guess will be the new designation on the liberal calendar.

All your opinion, nothing more. And who cares what you think? I don't recall anybody asking you to marry another man.

My opinion? Its not just my opinion mate, its the opinion of the majority of the world, and people want their opinions to be heard, while you liberals are only concerned by making the opinion of the majority, yield to the opinion of the minority.
We have to be told what marriage is by a fringe group of people who never were a part of marriage to begin with? Why is it wrong when we go to defend our rights to keep marriage what it always was?

You wouldn't know what love or equality was if they punched you in the vagina.

Because it doesn't exist.

You know, it's funny how often "moral decay" = tolerance and "family values" = discrimination. It's almost as if intolerant, discriminating arseholes are using those terms as an excuse to push their bigoted opinions on everyone else

Yes, moral decay is to me today this whole "tolerance" bullcrap that goes on today. Tolerate every form of moral decay, while silencing anyone who objects to it with "bigot!".
You people are such hypocrites.

Except, of course, that traditions do change over time. Others are abandoned. Unless you're suggesting that all traditions should be continued, regardless of their nature, the mere fact that something is traditional is insufficient to justify it's continuation. To do otherwise is to invoke special pleading. That is what you have to refute if you wish to keep using tradition as an argument.

This is not "over time", this is "over night". You're trying to inject a radical change that is most certain to deprive the institution of its purpose, in less than 50 years, while marriage has a millenia long history.
And well, if the said thing is a tradition itself, it does. Marriage itself is a tradition, and is bound by traditions.
If you want to remove traditions, remove marriage itself. Instead, you're still acting two-faced, you resent the traditions, but you don't resent marriage itself, which is a tradition that is bound by, and binds other traditions.
As I said, Marx, was in favor of abolishing marriage itself. He at least was an honest man. He hated the traditional family, and traditional society, and he wanted to abolish marriage completely.
You on the other hand, want marriage, but you want marriage to be devoid of everything that makes it "marriage".

But if you're happy to give the same legal rights to homosexual couples as are afforded to heterosexual couples without children, why do you need to give it a different name when it's the same thing?

It's not the same thing, because marriage does not just have a legal position, but also a social position.
But that is what you want. You don't need the legal rights, you need the social acceptance that marriage will give to homosexuals.
But after you destroy its traditions, it won't. A fools errand, I'd say.
Equality? In the eyes of marriage, an unmarried couple, an illegitimate child, is not equal with a married couple and a legitimate child. Come on and abolish these traditions? You can't sanctify homosexuality with a marriage devoid of its moral high-ground.

So why afford it to one "fringe group" and not another? The effects upon those couples are the same.

Because they are not a fringe group. They do not identify as a seperate group within society. They're part of the majority that has the privilage to marry.

Replace the word "homosexuals" with "slaves" and your argument sounds no less bigoted. I have already told you why tradition is not a valid argument, it's just special pleading. "Those traditions can be abandoned, not this one. Why? Because it's tradition!" Can't you see how ridiculous that stance is?

You know, lets do that. And slavery was abolished. Will you be the ones to abolish marriage? Or allow the slaves to own slaves? Because that is what gay marriage sounds like. Equality? Why can't a slave own a slave? In that manner, slaves and non-slaves would be equal in their ability to acquire slaves.
It is you who is ridiculous. Your stance is ridiculous.

That's an assertion, care to back it up? Whilst your at it, explain why homosexuals couples can't have family values. If they were raised in your utopian family unit, they should certainly know what family values are, right? Explain why they can't pass on those values. Actually, before you do that, why don't you explain those values are?

Well, it is as to say that a known traitor can become a nationalist leader.
It is the same as to suggest homosexuals that live out this lifestyle in contrast to their upbringing, can become people who perpetrate the same upbringing. IT is ridiculous.

I did nothing of the sort. There was a hole in your argument, I went for it. I distorted nothing.

You you did distort my words as though I had said anything about it. You cannot use infertile couples to provide your argument with a basis. They simply are not the same.
Unlike the homosexuals, they do not choose their inability to produce children.

I completely agree. Now explain why a homosexual couple can't provide the same. See if you can do it without using the word "tradition", or derivation thereof.

Without tradition, marriage is not marriage, for marriage itself is a human tradition.
Homosexuals cannot provide the same because they cannot procreate, and either the father or the mother figure will be lacking in their "families".

It's a separate, but related issue. Why can't SSM's do the same? Surely it's better for a child to be in a safe, loving family home than an orphanage or foster system?

I'm sure that with the right amount of money, and orphanage can do the same.
As for fostering, I don't know, but adoption should be out of the question. It breeds nothing more than confusion for the child. Yes perhaps the homosexuals can shower the child in toys and other assorted material things. But they cannot provide the child with what is required for a child to exist. A mother and a father. The fact that they have two mothers or two fathers will haunt that child for the rest of his/her life.

Really? I would have thought that the coming technology would be extraordinarily pertinent to the subject. The technology is on it's way, like it or not. Same sex couples will be able to reproduce and there's not much you can do about it. That being the case, I would have thought that someone with such a high regard for family values would want to ensure that those same values are given to those children. Excluding the parents of those children from the very institutions which you claim so vital for values to take root, would strike me as being counter-productive at best.

Same sex couples can only reproduce by the use of surrogacy. A male lacks a womb, and a female lacks the capacity to produce sperm.
Any form of "reproduction" will still be based on the male and female reproductive systems. So its actually doing nothing but to provide them with what they were born already, either a penis, or a womb.
They simply don't want to use those the way they were meant to be used.

Wrong. Relationships come with a set of responsibilities that you should fulfil. The number of failed relationships and dysfunctional families should indicate that this doesn't always happen. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it is a separate issue and has bugger all to with sexuality.

Relations without marriage are worthless. Their responsibilities have no ground to stand on, and there is no one to tell you otherwise.
I can cheat on my girlfriend, and can walk away from it without gathering much scorn from society. I can impregnate a girl outside of marriage, and can do practically the same, for I do not really have the responsibility to look after an illegitimate child. I can do most of these things outside of marriage.

Don't be stupid. It was an example to illustrate that you can't hold something as sacred simply because it has been prevalent though out the history of civilisation. I could just as easily have used religion as an example. Or slavery, war, rape or any number of other insalubrious examples.

Well, marriage is the basis of civilisation. So I can, and I have to.

No, it really isn't. If it was, then we wouldn't be facing an overpopulation crisis.

We'll just start a few wars, and it'll just go back to equilibrium.

Trust me, I despise Marx a damn sight more than he despised marriage. I do think families are important. I do think family values are important, but we clearly don't have the same opinion on what those values actually are.

Why despise Marx? He created your form of thought.
If you think families and family values are important, stop defending this gay marriage madness.
Be consistent with your own words. I am consistent with everything I say.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Yes, moral decay is to me today this whole "tolerance" bullcrap that goes on today. Tolerate every form of moral decay, while silencing anyone who objects to it with "bigot!".
You people are such hypocrites.

What? Moral decay is tolerance, but we have to tolerate moral decay? So your problem is that you have to tolerate tolerance?? Talk sense.

And well, if the said thing is a tradition itself, it does. Marriage itself is a tradition, and is bound by traditions.

I'm tired of explaining why tradition alone is an insufficient defence. If you continue to try to use tradition as an a priori justification in any of your points, I'll simply dismiss it.

It's not the same thing, because marriage does not just have a legal position, but also a social position.

Great comeback. The point I was replying to was specifically about legal rights.

Because they are not a fringe group. They do not identify as a seperate group within society. They're part of the majority that has the privilage to marry.

My mistake, I must have got confused by them being a group that you described as fringe examples

You know, lets do that. And slavery was abolished. Will you be the ones to abolish marriage? Or allow the slaves to own slaves?

Congratulations on completely missing the point. Yet Again.

That's an assertion, care to back it up? Whilst your at it, explain why homosexuals couples can't have family values. If they were raised in your utopian family unit, they should certainly know what family values are, right? Explain why they can't pass on those values. Actually, before you do that, why don't you explain those values are?

Well, it is as to say that a known traitor can become a nationalist leader.It is the same as to suggest homosexuals that live out this lifestyle in contrast to their upbringing, can become people who perpetrate the same upbringing. IT is ridiculous.

Well done on explaining those values. As for backing up the assertion, that was pathetic. Treason is a matter of perspective. A traitor to one person is a hero to another.

You you did distort my words as though I had said anything about it.

No. I directly quoted you in my response. There was no distortion.

Same sex couples can only reproduce by the use of surrogacy. A male lacks a womb, and a female lacks the capacity to produce sperm. Any form of "reproduction" will still be based on the male and female reproductive systems. So its actually doing nothing but to provide them with what they were born already, either a penis, or a womb.They simply don't want to use those the way they were meant to be used.

I see you paid close attention to those links. Well done.

Relations without marriage are worthless. Their responsibilities have no ground to stand on, and there is no one to tell you otherwise.
I can cheat on my girlfriend, and can walk away from it without gathering much scorn from society. I can impregnate a girl outside of marriage, and can do practically the same, for I do not really have the responsibility to look after an illegitimate child. I can do most of these things outside of marriage.

You can do all those things in a marriage too. "Traditionally", there has been little to no stigma for a man that does so.

We'll just start a few wars, and it'll just go back to equilibrium.

I think I'll recycle one of my earlier responses to you:

Not a bad idea. Then we could get ourselves some sexy uniforms, reclaim the Sudetenland and......and........oh, wait. This is starting to sound a bit familiar.

Why despise Marx? He created your form of thought.

Really? I didn't know Karl Marx hated socialism. Are you sure you're not talking shite again?

[Violet]

Well in all fairness, I did lash out first, albeit not at you. And I'm not ashamed of that. Secondly, you did attack me and my intelligence, so don't play like you're innocent, lol. But what's a little sticks and stones in a controversial argument?

You could lash out at anyone... and my response would remain generally disapproving. I'd certainly raise an eyebrow and/or furrow my brow. Shame is often not felt until much later, in observance of one's regrets.

It remains that I have yet to attack you, or your intelligence I *have* made mildly scathing musings towards that which you have put forth... and I have also offered the suggestion of introspection, complete with some potentially notes upon which you may be overlooking.

I am rather of the understanding that all I am here to do is help you, and to share the virtues of being reasonable with you. When harmlessly educating observations are become an attack: the universe itself sunders before my assault.



"Sticks and stones" (used in the implied manner) are as weapons of war in debate; weapons are only used as 'argument' by the unreasonable and control-desiring tyrant. That... is what a few 'sticks and stones' are to a discussion A weapon is a tool with one intended use: to exert will.

Mudslinging serves only to foster anger, deter pursuit, or impart pain. I would contend that it is 'controversy' above all else which should be absent insult... for there is little hope of reconciliation in war.

No, being a Christian wouldn't make any opinion any less or more valid than any other group of people but it's a notorious fact that Christians predominantly are against marriage equality

And Muslims are not? How about the Hindi? The not necessarily theistic Soviet-era Russians? The Roman Republic? Small communities all around the world? Native tribes? Uganda? The wonderful 'concentration camps' of the Nazis? South Africa...

Don't be fooled by Western media (the notoriety you speak of, I presume): the rest of the world is a very real place, and humanitarian issues are not alone American or European.

In some places homosexuals are put to death; 'marriage equality' be damned.

---

So god's a hypocritical cuntbucket. What else is new?

These SHOES. I LOVE them!

---

I think Violet Lilly Blossom hit the nail on the head with the issue of legal benefits. Denying homosexual couples the legal rights that married couples benefit from is just plain discrimination, no matter how you try to justify it.

That isn't to say that discrimination is not (of itself) a good thing, of course. It is a GOOD thing to recognize difference... but only when one observes the relevance of difference

There simply isn't much to gain with applying legal benefits to marriage anymore. It no longer offers the legislative benefits it once did (speaking of America's operational benefits in recognizing marriage but 50 years ago).

The internet and electronic filing have pretty much made it utterly without purpose, and the government could serve to gain a bit from removing any and all tax-benefits from such Mailing, tax collecting efficiency, etc...

Especially what with women working... it's just too much of a concession to make. It's a shame that many congresspeople are married... because the married could find themselves paying a bit more in taxes (either from the removal-of, or the additional application of. I'm partial to the latter, myself).

---

Huh. Cos, like, up till now, you've been bemoaning the fact that, increasingly, "normal society" DOES want to embrace gays in all their glorious gayness.

Toleration and embrace are not one and the same.

I wouldn't even say 'normal society' 'wants' but for tolerance... it simply is become (somewhat) more 'tolerating' of difference, and that often carries along the recognition of various injustices. This is, infact, natural for any and all 'melting-pot' societies.

For the nationalistic inclinations of Mehmet, on the other hand? Such 'tolerance' is nondesirable... even deplorable when driven to the point of government deliberation and/or concession.

Can't have it both ways, chum. Or can you bring yourself to accept that you do not represent "normal society" in the year 2013, but just a dwindling minority of pious prurient perverts obsessed with the sexual habits of complete strangers?

'Normal society' is extremely subjective. I would find a 'normal society' to be the 'most common societal infrastructure'... but in both yours and his: 'normal society' is more in the understanding of each of your coloured understandings of what would be expected of a society.

What do you know of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America, and various island nations? What I know is that these are hardly 'dwindling'... and that they are most definitely is not a minority. Democracy itself was a bit of Greece's thing, and it was largely forgotten between the fall of the Roman Republic and the formation of the American Republic.

Many are made uncomfortable when become aware in an environment and not acclimatized to their new awareness. Much of history and well-over a quarter (even a third?) of this planet's humans would generally side with Mehmet regarding this specific issue... a view being 'a majority' or 'minority' variation of such neither makes the view valid, nor invalid.

I wouldn't be the one to say anything along the lines of 'the majority believe it, therefore it is so'... especially when attempting the defense of 'the new'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94

Semi-relevant

[Violet]

I wasn't aware that marriage was some unalterable law of nature that could only be interpreted in one way. You've got to love the self-righteous constipation here. It can only be this way because that's the way it always was. You know, humans were nomadic hunters and gatherers for far longer than we've had cities and stationary homes. Is civilization wrong? Was it a violation of the natural order to live in a hut and grow crops and tend livestock? I'm sure there were no shortage of people who held this viewpoint circa 13,000-9,000 BCE.

As a white man, that works just as well to justify me enslaving people with brown skin. Society viewed my kind as inherently and naturally superior to people with other skin colors. Did this stop being true? Is it still true but we're living in multicultural denial? Or, was it never true in the first place?

Feelings of superiority typically derive from the domination of others, and similar beings are often categorized as having some common characteristics. Most Spruce have abrasive bark, most Birch have smooth bark... when envisioning a Birch tree, we subconsciously associate such with how we believe they will feel, how we envision them to look.

When encountering any thing that but mildly resembles the common characteristics expected of its population, there are three common responses: confusion, curiosity, and apprehension. How an individual responds to such is a very good reflection of their person.

I could provide a number of examples, after all: I have been, and remain quite discriminatory.... but I believe that the reader is ALSO quite the distinguished distinguishing distinguisher

'Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.'

---

Speaking of which, I have Assassins Creed 4... I should play more of it, but I can already say it's a vastly superior game to those come before. I can finally enjoy* these games!

*My back STILL screams in agony every time I perform a "Leap of Faith"

---

---

[quote='Ryantology' pid='543920' dateline='1384557060']
It really doesn't impress me that you dodged the questions and justified your cowardice in the stupidest way possible.

On another note, Lion IRC has suddenly become remarkably silent in this thread for some reason.

People have lives, and they gotta breath

I wouldn't want to spend all of my time here, being all philosophical, as it's lost on most people, and she who benefits from my presence is quiet indeed.

There is no greater an opposition than silence; no greater an insult than ignorance; no greater a weapon of war than pacifism.

---

Ooh! ooh! I know why!

It's because Lion actually has a brain that does consider right and wrong, and he sees himself on the side of super-crazy here, and feels uncomfortable?

Am I right, Ryan? Do I get a sparkly pencil or an eraser shaped like a rainbow or something?

---

If you strip away all of the justifications for your viewpoint which are demonstrably arbitrary or lacking any basis in objective reality, you have, as a defense of keeping marriage traditional, "I think gay sex is icky and there are few enough of them that we can get away with treating them as second-class citizens".

Welcome to society's basis, Ryan

[Lion IRC]

...On another note, Lion IRC has suddenly become remarkably silent in this thread for some reason.

Thanks for noticing.

Here's my next contribution. Send me a PM when you're ready for another.

The largest State in Australia, NSW, just voted down same-sex "marriage".
http://www.acl.org.au/2013/11/emails-to-...-marriage/

The National legislature, Australia's Federal Parliament resoundingly defeated a similar Bill in September last year.

Mainstream media polls in the past have consistently claimed that support for SSM in Australia is around 70%.

BUT...the most recent ABC Election Compass poll showed that number has shrunk to just 52% hock:

Maybe the NSW parliament is becoming more conservative.
They yesterday enacted legislation giving the unborn official legal status as living human beings. (63 votes in favor. 20 votes against.)
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newsloc...6765314208

[Lion IRC]

If its taken so long to get just 15 States - not all of which popularly voted for SSM in the normal democratic fashion - how much longer or likely will it be that every other State will eventually follow?

Isn't there a good likelihood that 15 same-sex marriage 'ghetto' jurisdictions might casually SLOW DOWN the impetus as other States are alleviated of the so-called 'need' for LGBTQI folk to be able to get "married"?

Same gender people can no longer truthfully claim that can't get "married". They CAN!

It would be ironic if the so-called victory in some jurisdictions actually made it harder for gay ppl in surrounding States to claim that they are being discriminated against.

[Autumnlicious]

Isn't there a good likelihood that 15 same-sex marriage 'ghetto' jurisdictions might casually SLOW DOWN the impetus as other States are alleviated of the so-called 'need' for LGBTQI folk to be able to get "married"?

Of course Lion, the same way free states magically made it more difficult for slave states to become free /s

[Ryantology]

If its taken so long to get just 15 States - not all of which popularly voted for SSM in the normal democratic fashion - how much longer or likely will it be that every other State will eventually follow?

It's 16 now. Hawaii actually snuck in and beat Illinois to the punch.

Just one year ago, only six states recognized same-sex marriage.

All we really need is for one of the old conservative dinosaurs like Scalia or Thomas to kick the bucket so that we can finally get a fifth liberal in the Supreme Court and do what should have been done earlier this year: rule that marriage discrimination is in violation of of the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

Thanks for noticing.

Yeah. Maybe next time you'll read the articles you cite. I almost want to give you kudos for showing your face in this thread after making such a giant ass of yourself.

Here's my next contribution. Send me a PM when you're ready for another.

The largest State in Australia, NSW, just voted down same-sex "marriage".
http://www.acl.org.au/2013/11/emails-to-...-marriage/

The National legislature, Australia's Federal Parliament resoundingly defeated a similar Bill in September last year.

It's just delaying the inevitable, because...

Mainstream media polls in the past have consistently claimed that support for SSM in Australia is around 70%.

BUT...the most recent ABC Election Compass poll showed that number has shrunk to just 52% hock:

... look at the support numbers by age. Barely 20% of the youngest voters support continuing discrimination. Just over 30% do amongst the middle-aged. There isn't even a plurality in favor of discrimination amongst the old, and when they start dying off, so will any effective barrier against equality for all Australians.

How delightfully dishonest, by the way, to suggest that one poll with different results represents a major shift of opinion. Besides which, what has not changed is that opposition to marriage equality is still a distinctly minority position. The poll shows no corresponding rise in support for discrimination.

Maybe the NSW parliament is becoming more conservative.
They yesterday enacted legislation giving the unborn official legal status as living human beings. (63 votes in favor. 20 votes against.)
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newsloc...6765314208

Again, enjoy it while you can.