Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[SteelCurtain]

Boom.

[Heywood]

Esquilax,

Just because you are incapable of considering different assumptions and seeing how they alter conclusions doesn't mean that I am incapable of it.

I just have to look back at your previous threads and your inability to let go of demonstrably false arguments for even a second to see how incapable you are of considering the views of others outside of the prism of your religious beliefs.

Oh, and incidentally? "No, you are!" isn't an argument.

Esquilax, I rejected your arguments because they were unconvincing...and often downright irrelevant.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I just have to look back at your previous threads and your inability to let go of demonstrably false arguments for even a second to see how incapable you are of considering the views of others outside of the prism of your religious beliefs.

Oh, and incidentally? "No, you are!" isn't an argument.

Esquilax, I rejected your arguments because they were unconvincing...and often downright irrelevant.

That's odd.

Do you think that heterosexual couples who have no intention on having children should be incentivized?

The union of young child bearing couples has more value to a society/population than the union of a couple who are past their child bearing years. A thought experiment is all that is needed to prove this. Imagine if all couples were transformed into old couples who are past their child bearing years.....it would be a catastrophe. Now imagine if all couples were transformed into younger couples within their child bearing years....society/population wouldn't miss a beat.

The state may want to incentivize the union of young couples and not incentivize the union of old. A rational argument can be made to ban old people marriage. This might not be a good thing to do....but that is besides to point. The action has a rational basis for it. The judge claimed there was no rational reason to ban gay marriage....which is silly...rational reasons are a dime a dozen.

Because you don't seem to have advanced any "rational arguments" other than presenting marriage as a state-incentivized baby-farm, which is not at all compelling, convincing, or relevant.

[Heywood]

Esquilax, I rejected your arguments because they were unconvincing...and often downright irrelevant.

That's odd.

The union of young child bearing couples has more value to a society/population than the union of a couple who are past their child bearing years. A thought experiment is all that is needed to prove this. Imagine if all couples were transformed into old couples who are past their child bearing years.....it would be a catastrophe. Now imagine if all couples were transformed into younger couples within their child bearing years....society/population wouldn't miss a beat.

The state may want to incentivize the union of young couples and not incentivize the union of old. A rational argument can be made to ban old people marriage. This might not be a good thing to do....but that is besides to point. The action has a rational basis for it. The judge claimed there was no rational reason to ban gay marriage....which is silly...rational reasons are a dime a dozen.

Because you don't seem to have advanced any "rational arguments" other than presenting marriage as a state-incentivized baby-farm, which is not at all compelling, convincing, or relevant.

Sorry Rampant, your arguments and your thinking are about as bad as Esquilax's.

Rasetsu, Chuck, Alex K, Cthulhu Dreaming, make tough arguments. I'm sure there are others, but those 4 come to mind as being the brightest around here.

[Ryantology]

The rationale reason would be that heterosexual unions generally offer more value to society then homosexual unions. A simple thought experiment is all that is needed to prove the point. Imagine if everyone in a society became homosexual. Such an event would be catastrophic on society. Now imagine if everyone in society became heterosexual. Society wouldn't miss a beat.

Since heterosexual unions generally provide more value to society, the state has reasons to incent such unions over less valuable ones.

1. Not everybody is homosexual, so who cares?
2. The idea that a marriage has to "be of value to society" is both specious and horrible.
3. Not all heterosexual marriages are equally "valuable", yet this plays no role in heterosexual marriage outside of polygamy and incest.
4. Society vs. individual rights is one of those things that regressives change sides on whenever the 'individual' is someone they don't seem to like.

So, like the judge said, there is no rational reason.

I'm surprised. I've started threads on this before, and usually the pro-discrimination dog turds wait a while before coming in and reminding everybody that they are really terrible human beings.

[Rampant.A.I.]

That's odd.


Because you don't seem to have advanced any "rational arguments" other than presenting marriage as a state-incentivized baby-farm, which is not at all compelling, convincing, or relevant.

Sorry Rampant, your arguments and your thinking are about as bad as Esquilax's.

Rasetsu, Chuck, Alex K, Cthulhu Dreaming, make tough arguments. I'm sure there are others, but those 4 come to mind as being the brightest around here.

I asked you to present an argument against gay marriage, since you're the one against it, and assert they're plentiful and easy to provide.

If you're incapable, that's fine, but don't pretend to pin your lack of a compelling argument is a "failed argument" I never presented.

[Heywood]

The rationale reason would be that heterosexual unions generally offer more value to society then homosexual unions. A simple thought experiment is all that is needed to prove the point. Imagine if everyone in a society became homosexual. Such an event would be catastrophic on society. Now imagine if everyone in society became heterosexual. Society wouldn't miss a beat.

Since heterosexual unions generally provide more value to society, the state has reasons to incent such unions over less valuable ones.

1. Not everybody is homosexual, so who cares?
2. The idea that a marriage has to "be of value to society" is both specious and horrible.
3. Not all heterosexual marriages are equally "valuable", yet this plays no role in heterosexual marriage outside of polygamy and incest.
4. Society vs. individual rights is one of those things that regressives change sides on whenever the 'individual' is someone they don't seem to like.

So, like the judge said, there is no rational reason.

I'm surprised. I've started threads on this before, and usually the pro-discrimination dog turds wait a while before coming in and reminding everybody that they are really terrible human beings.

You've got a signature that says, "If Jesus comes back, we'll kill him again" and you call me horrible? You're advocating murder.

Anyways my responses to your points
1. Who cares? The people of Arkansas.
2. Claiming marriage has no value is a poor argument. Most find marriage a valuable component in society.
3. You are applying specific incidents and claiming it applies as a general rule.
4. This is actually a good point. Where you err is in thinking it makes the rational reason to ban gay marriage go away.

[Rampant.A.I.]

You're right...it makes no sense because you never claimed to be a follower of NAZIism.

When did I claim to follow the bible?

The do you want to advance one of these "dime a dozen" "rational reasons" gay couples should not be allowed to marry, or are you just blowing more smoke?

Sorry Rampant, your arguments and your thinking are about as bad as Esquilax's.

---

Rasetsu, Chuck, Alex K, Cthulhu Dreaming, make tough arguments. I'm sure there are others, but those 4 come to mind as being the brightest around here.

---

I asked you to present an argument against gay marriage, since you're the one against it, and assert they're plentiful and easy to provide.

If you're incapable, that's fine, but don't pretend to pin your lack of a compelling argument is a "failed argument" I never presented.

Third time: What's the "rational reason" to ban gay marriage?

[Minimalist]

You are a perfect example of why bigotry must be eliminated from the law, Woodie.

[SteelCurtain]

There is none. And he knows it. He's just trolling. He's like a 12 year old who gets off on being a jackass, pushing peoples buttons, seeing how far he can take things. Consider his -35 rep on TTA.