Tony_Tarantula on 4/7/2015 at 13:43
Quote Posted by faetal
You haven't even remotely shown how this ruling will force women into polygamous marriages with men, who will then own them.
I'm giving you an F-
Strawman Argument, you flunk too. You're dramatically overstating my argument due to the use of the word "force". If you'd read what the University of Cambridge had to say you'd know that.
Anyway speaking of ACA,
(
http://watchdog.org/226796/obamacare-punishes-small-businesses/) The government is now going to start punishing small businesses who help their employees with the cost of healthcare.
No, that's not Hyperbole on my part:
Quote:
Employers who reimburse their workers for health care costs will face massive tax penalties beginning Wednesday.
Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, with its mandate that all Americans purchase insurance and requirement for businesses to offer employees insurance plans, many small companies provided coverage by directly reimbursing medical costs or for the cost of private insurance plans. Businesses do it because that’s a less complicated process than dealing with an official health insurance plan, but continuing to do so after July 1 could cost them hundreds of dollars in fines each day.
Business groups are calling attention to what they say is an obscure part of Obamacare that could crush small businesses who are unaware of it.
Tony_Tarantula on 4/7/2015 at 14:07
Quote Posted by faetal
You're falling into the non sequitur trap of talking about polygamy for some reason. Also, it is a classic slippery slope argument - you've looked at the supreme court decision regarding same sex marriage, and have described a slippery slope leading to the eventual enslavement of women by men via polygamy.
No, it's not a "slippery slope argument". As I alluded to earlier, Here is what Justice Kennedy had to say on the matter:
"“it is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation's society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage."
From elsewhere in the ruling:
Quote:
In defining the right to marry [the Court”s cases have identified essential attributes of that right based in history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond. See, e.g., Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 574; Turner, supra, at 95; Zablocki, supra, at 384; Loving, supra, at 12; Griswold, supra, at 486. And in assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453-454; Poe, supra, at 542-553 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.
The four attributes are described here, but I am going to refrain from using the quote function as doing so would create a massive wall of text: (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/26/whats-in-the-same-sex-marriage-ruling/)
You can not logically argue that what he describes does not apply to polygamous couples as well as monogamous ones. The only room for debate is that Kennedy used the phrase "two person union", but seeing as he did not specifically exclude multi-person unions that precedent is unlikely to hold up if challenged.
Quote:
You haven't even paused to describe how being
allowed to marry someone of the same sex will allow men to
force multiple women to marry him and become his slaves. Also, ditch the "not worth repeating here" rhetoric and either stop making references to vague "stuff in the media" or be specific. You aren't a very good communicator.
Strawman, see above. Respond to what I actually said. There is overwhelming correlation between polygamous societies and a deterioration of gender rights.
Quote:
Plenty, given that the culture exists outside of fraternities. I've spent plenty of time in the company of guys who refer to women as objects, joke around about getting women so drunk they can easily sleep with them etc... I didn't realise you were specifically referring to only culture which exists inside actual frat houses, I thought you were making a generalisation about frat boy-
esque douche-baggery. Of that, I know many people who've been on the receiving end of date rape, coercion into group sex, being too drunk and choose and the guy not accetping no, blaming the woman for leading him on etc... Rape culture is a real thing which affects people.
The thing is, "knowing many people" doesn't make you somehow more qualified to speak on the issue. It's like when white people think they understand racism because "I have black friends" or think they understand anti-gay bigotry because "I have gay friends". Doesn't work that way.
And yes, it is still very much a first world way of looking at the problem. The key difference is that women here still have a lot more control over that situation Admittedly this study uses the debunked "1 in 4" statistic but they also found that (
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/43-51.htm) approximately half of all rapes involve alcohol
Girls in Polygamous societies like the Mormon communities or other parts of the world can do all of jack shit to lower their risk.
Again, since you're a bit of a black and white thinker, I have to add that I am NOT saying that the rapey hookup culture that exists is OK....but you have to be able to think beyond the specific issue and put it on context. To borrow a phrase from Warren Buffet it's better to be generally right than precisely wrong.
Last Bit.
Do you know who predicted the emergence of a "rape culture" all the way back in 1968?
It was Pope Paul VI talking about what would happen if contraception was legalFrom his 1968 encyclical on artificial birth control
Quote:
Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.
Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. Key phrase is "reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires".
That sounds like "rape culture".
icemann on 4/7/2015 at 18:32
On this one I would HIGHLY recommend watching (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwwg1Yt18vE) this little video from the react channel on youtube. See what the kids of today think of the decision to allow gay marriage nationwide in the US.
The beauty of it, is that they don't have all the preconditioning on the topic that many of us have had done to us over the course of our lifetimes via the media, government, religion etc. I think it's an excellent video.
Manwe on 5/7/2015 at 02:22
Quote Posted by icemann
The beauty of it, is that they don't have all the preconditioning on the topic that many of us have had done to us over the course of our lifetimes via the media, government, religion etc. I think it's an excellent video.
This is such a stupid remark, I'm forced to chime in. Preconditioning is precisely what they've been subjected to. Heck the link you gave us is exactly that, kids being preconditioned to think a certain way. Only they're being preconditioned the right way, the good way, the LGBT way. So all of a sudden preconditioning becomes acceptable, laudable even. Just like ganging up to insult, harass, bully and threaten someone is fine as long as it's against someone who doesn't agree with the general consensus.
Also I think most people are missing the real problem with gay marriage. It's not so much about the marriage itself. The contention most people have is about procreation and the "fundamental right to have a baby" mentality. As far as I know two guys together or two girls together can't have a baby on their own (unless I missed something). More so in the case of guys actually. A lesbian can still get pregnant the natural way as unpleasant as that may be. But as far as I'm concerned, if you have no uterus you have no right to have a baby (probably my heterosexual turned-on-by-lesbian-sex slant talking here). However if we accept that male couples also have a fundamental right to have a baby then they have to resort to more ethically questionable measures in order to procreate. Call those measures what you will, IVF, surrogacy, it all comes down to the same thing: buying. We're talking about the monetization of life. Imagine that, being born from... well not being born, having been bought.
Besides as far as I know whatever the method used, only one of the parent will transfer his genes to the child, and only one will be the biological parent. The other biological parent will forever remain a nobody (I might be completely wrong on this, please enlighten me if that's the case).
If we continue down this individualistic route, how long till single people decide they have a "fundamental right to have a baby" as well?
In the end, we all know what's going to happen, if there's a demand for it an offer will appear. And who's kindly going to offer their womb for rent? The white privileged upper class tightcunt bourgeoises? Think again! Gotta keep that body fit and slim. More like the proles in desperate need of money, the blacks, the latinos, the arabs, the asians, etc... So if you're looking forward to a world in which third world country women rent their body so the first world elite can have their living dolls, sure gay marriage is a huge progress. I know, I know all crazy fantasies of a sick mind, conspiracy theories, lies, etc... Nevermind that all of this already exists in the US and has existed for a while now. Let's conveniently ignore reality and keep living in lalaland.
Fafhrd on 5/7/2015 at 05:28
You know that there's this thing called "adoption," right? And that married couples are more likely to be approved for adoption than unmarried ones (in fact, some states bar unmarried people from adoption altogether)? And that adoption rates for same sex couples (even lesbians) are significantly higher than they are for heterosexual couples? And that even heterosexual couples use IVF and surrogacy and sperm and egg donors to have children?
So maybe have some sort of fucking clue about what the fuck it is you're talking about before spouting off with your horseshit.
icemann on 5/7/2015 at 05:52
Quote Posted by Manwe
This is such a stupid remark, I'm forced to chime in.
And he didn't watch the video. Hence missing the mark entirely. Snap.
Gryzemuis on 5/7/2015 at 12:57
Quote Posted by Manwe
Preconditioning is precisely what they've been subjected to.
Agreed. You could probably just as well go to Utah or Texas (or some Christian areas in my country), and make an exact same documentary. But this time full of kids that are opposed to same-sex marriage.
However, I think those kids might look a lot more nasty, dumb, uninformed, biased and unpleasant. Kids want other people to be happy. Only when we grow up to be adults, that's when we become sad sour acid pathetic scumbags, who want to see other people unhappy.
The subject of preconditioning children is a whole other matter. Different discussion, I'd say. I'm against it. But what would be the alternative ? And most parents want their children to be drilled, preconditioned and brainwashed, so they think exactly like they do. Pretty hard to go against the will of the parents.
Quote:
The contention most people have is about procreation and the "fundamental right to have a baby" mentality.
That is a problem indeed.
However, it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Example: these people are all hetero-sexual. And had kids.
(
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=honey%20boo%20boo)
Child exploitation (peagants), sexual abuse (by mommy's boyfriend), obesity at 7 years old, over-exposure, teenage-pregnancies, you name it. Do you think these kids get a decent upbringing ? Do you think these parents are fit to raise children ? Yet, there isn't a single law against it. Do you really think two loving homosexuals could not do a better job ?
Quote:
Call those measures what you will, IVF, surrogacy, it all comes down to the same thing: buying. We're talking about the monetization of life. Imagine that, being born from... well not being born, having been bought.
IVF all started with hetero-sexual couples. I never saw half a country stand up against that.
If IVF (and other technical means to help conception) is acceptable for hetero-sexual couples, it's also acceptable for homo-sexual couples. That's the concept of equality for all people.
Also, IVF is not cheap. Don't you think that couples (hetero and homo) who use IVF to get a baby, really really really want that baby ? There are so (
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-unplanned-pregnancies-percent.html) many unwanted children born. I think that's a much bigger problem. The right is very much against abortion (and contraception sometimes even). But once those children are born, the right doesn't seem to care much about other people anymore. I rather see planned and wanted babies, even if it takes a little help.
Quote:
If we continue down this individualistic route, how long till single people decide they have a "fundamental right to have a baby" as well?
But they do already. If a single mom wants a kid, she can have one within 9-10 months. Just takes a few days (weeks maybe) to find acceptable genes, and find a way to get the donor in your bed. I think the lower social class young girls are in, the higher the chances this happens. (At least in my country). Only when you are a single man, then it gets a lot harder.
Quote:
In the end, we all know what's going to happen
No we don't.
And also, your line of reasoning has very little to do with same-sex marriages.
This is another example of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
"If you do something different, against my wishes, terrible things will happen ! Or could happen ! Are you willing to take the risk for the world to blow up, just because you want change ?"
Manwe on 5/7/2015 at 13:06
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
You know that there's this thing called "adoption," right?
Yes, rich people (usually white) buying poor people's babies (usually coloured). My point exactly.
Quote:
And that married couples are more likely to be approved for adoption than unmarried ones (in fact, some states bar unmarried people from adoption altogether)?
Yes and I'm calling it now, in a few years time single "parents" will ask for the same right as couples to have a baby, and will get it. All in the name of equality. It's the inevitable conclusion. Kids will become a chic accessory, bought for a few thousand dollars, raised by the nanny, and educated by the LGBT community.
Quote:
And he didn't watch the video. Hence missing the mark entirely. Snap.
I think you're the one who didn't pay attention to the video. They react favourably to gay marriage in this video because they've been preconditioned this way. And this video is a way to precondition other kids as well. Whether it's a conscious or unconscious decision by the makers of the video, that's what it will do. We even have a kid saying he changed his mind. "Yup I was against it, but I was wrong, I understand that now". Others state they weren't aware of most of these issues just a few years back. A kid not being aware that men and women are interchangeable and that you can switch gender on the fly as you please? Well go figure. The LGBT community sure has done a lot of work in just two years.
Would also be interesting to get the point of view of kids other than rich (mostly) white americans. Guess what the reaction to gay marriage would be from a middle-eastern kid, or a chinese kid. "But how do they make the babies?". In a laboratory that's how.
Sulphur on 5/7/2015 at 13:16
Yeah; I think the fact that people like you can be accepted in normal society is a really good example of the horrors of preconditioning.
Manwe on 5/7/2015 at 13:29
Gryzemuis you have to understand I'm not American. In France IVF, surrogacy and even adoption are still very rare and kind of a taboo. I think IVF is legal for sterile couples, so with the recent adoption of gay marriage I think that means lesbian couples can have babies (possibly? I don't even know). Surrogacy however is a big no no. Couples have to travel abroad to do it (just like adoption I think). Since more gay couples mean more demand for surrogacy, IVF and adoption, it's safe to assume not long from now the government will eventually give in to their demands and legalize it. And I know you guys are all for progress and stuff but those things aren't progress, they're fucked up and lead to inevitable exploitation of the poor by the rich. Right now the US essentially works as a model towards which all modern societies are headed. The US nowadays is pretty much our future in 10-20 years. And I'm sorry to say that's a scary thought.
