Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Texas is... progressive?Follow

#227 Oct 06 2009 at 6:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
No one at any point in time sat down and said, hey I'd like to get more people to marry what incentives can I offer.


Um... That's more or less *exactly* what happened in the process of developing our tax code to widen the brackets for married couples. Same deal with common law marriage legislation. People did indeed think about the effects the legislation they were passing would have on marriage, and (in the case of common law marriage) wrote the darn things specifically to ensure that people who lived together without getting married were "forced" to be legally considered married.

Clearly, the state had some vested interest in making sure people of opposite sex who lived together for long periods of time were bound together. Or can you think of some other reason why common law marriages exist?


Quote:
What actually happened is that a significant portion of married people wanted a certain benefit and a politician thought, hey I bet that would get me their votes.


No. That's not really it. While I'm sure there was some political pressure, it was almost certainly from those arguing that if certain legal changes and benefits were not put in place that rates of marriage would decline and the good people of <wherever> would surely not support a politician who'd make it easier for folks to just shack up without marrying first.

You've also got to realize that in the US, about the same time frame at which we instituted most of the state benefits for marriage, we were removing the social pressures which had historically pushed people into marrying. We replaced the stick with the carrot basically, going from mob enforced shotgun weddings and social ostracism to financial inducements.

Quote:
Or earlier then that, a group of people who had enough power to affect change thought of something they wanted and made it happen. I guess that's pretty much the same thing.


That's why people might do it today in our society which seems to automatically look to the government as an entitlement vending machine. You do know that this is a relatively recent social concept, right?

Quote:
I think aside from the fact that I don't think benefits in marriage were created as an incentive, the biggest problem with your argument is that kids don't need marriage. If we're talking about early societies, children were a net gain. Children were essentially your retirement plan, and your free labour so they were sought out.


Of course. If the parents were married, they were a net gain. But if they weren't? Or some layabout who didn't have a career (and therefore nothing for the kids to help him do)? Then, they were a net drain. A whole lot of social rules and customs surrounding marriage involve making sure that the couple will be financially capable. Why do you suppose that is?

Quote:
There was no need to bind people to take care of their children because it was an investment. There is no need for marriage to enforce this, so there must be some other reason for marriage. Oh right, it's about the man and the women.



Really? Then why are 40% of children born in the US born to single mothers? If it's such an investment and such a great thing for everyone, why are so few fathers sticking around? The social issue is not new. It has always been the case that if men aren't forced to take responsibility for the children they produce, they wont (in large enough numbers to be a noticeable negative effect on society). That's why all those social rules existed. It's why we replaced them with financial inducements (which admittedly never worked as well as the social pressure approach).


As I touched on earlier. The great irony of all of this is that the traditional pressures and incentives designed to force marriage on couples were mostly eliminated as a result of the feminist movement. They were seen as trapping women. They were trapped by men in marriage, and trapped by children if they were single. So they eliminated the social pressures. Then gradually created counter-inducements to marriage (stuff like deductions for dependents regardless of marital status, and social programs designed to give direct aid to single mothers). Now, they've got exactly what they wanted. A society in which marriage occurs far less often than it should.


Are women better off? I think they got the shaft really. Just ask all those single women stuck on welfare supporting their children without the fathers in the picture. Job well done? I think not. So how about we not compound our social mistakes over the last century by further watering down the meaning, purpose, and utility of marriage by making it just something any two people get if they decide to live together. I don't hold this position because I'm mean to gay people, but because I honestly believe that our society, and especially the women within our society are vastly worse off the more we attempt to divorce the concept of marriage from the obligations of men with regard to child rearing.

Edited, Oct 6th 2009 7:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#228 Oct 06 2009 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
You know what I find telling? That you had to alter the current world in order to justify your definition of marriage.


It's a thought experiment dork.


I think it's a somewhat silly thought experiment but I did not attack it, and I answered it. Actually no one attacked it, and a few people answered it. CBD wasn't referring to your thought experiment Gbaji, but somehow I'm not surprised you missed that.


No. I'm pretty sure the whole "alter the current world to justify your definition" was specifically aimed at the thought experiment. Cause that's the only time I "altered the world" in any of my posts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Oct 06 2009 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
I won't rail on you for being an idiot, because you clearly completely misread the last part of my post, but I was referring to when marriage evolved not current times. Right now children are pretty much a net drain over their whole life, but for most of our history, and for early societies, that wasn't the case. I assume you'll want to rethink your last few paragraphs there.

Quote:
Um... That's more or less *exactly* what happened in the process of developing our tax code to widen the brackets for married couples. Same deal with common law marriage legislation.
How nice. Well if that is exactly what happened I guess it will be very easy for you to find records of this. Some released documentation describing it, or press release? That's pretty SOP in these cases, so it should be trivial for you to get this information. If you would ever use fact beyond just yelling no no I'm right, you'd be a lot more convincing.

Quote:
Cause that's the only time I "altered the world" in any of my posts
Smiley: laughyou're so funny.

Edited, Oct 6th 2009 9:35pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#230 Oct 06 2009 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's quite reasonable to test whether or not marriage exists in response to the need to raise children in society by imagining a society in which children did not need to be raised

It's even more reasonable to just provide actual evidence for your theories rather than having to play little guessing games and say "See!? So I must be right!"

Of course, you haven't managed to do so yet in the past however many years so... yeah, I guess games will have to do for you.

Quote:
It's also very telling how hard you are all trying to attack the method I'm using here.

How hard? I think you overestimate how difficult it is to say "That's dumb".

Quote:
It kinda confirms my belief that your premises are based on the conclusions you want to support and not the other way around.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh This is from the guy who's busy claiming that anything that doesn't fit his preconceived definition of marriage (the only one which gives his arguments any merit) doesn't really count when discussing the history and purposes of marriage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#231 Oct 07 2009 at 4:13 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
In a democracy, gbaji would be always wrong, all the time.

Thank God for democracy.
#232 Oct 07 2009 at 4:16 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I think now that gbaji has his passport, he should consider moving to Saudi Arabia, or the like, where he can see his far right wing ideals in action.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#233 Oct 07 2009 at 5:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
You know, people still got married in Soviet Russia. Just sayin'.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#234 Oct 07 2009 at 5:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I've heard rumours that they do it in China too. I can't understand why though, seeing as how they encourage you not to have children and if you do, you're limited to one.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#235 Oct 07 2009 at 5:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They don't get married in Cuba though. Unless they make it to the US and marry redheads in New York.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#236REDACTED, Posted: Oct 07 2009 at 5:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,
#237 Oct 07 2009 at 5:49 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
publiusvarus wrote:

Quote:
These days we keep incest illegal because it leads to a proliferation of unfavorable genetic diseases and health issues.


Homosexuality also leads to unfavorable health issues.

not if you do it right :D


Quote:
Quote:
Legalizing polygamy would be an overall bad idea because, as mentioned earlier, if one man has 6 wives, that would leave even less wives for closeted douchebags such as yourself. Under our current system, at least you will still eventually be matched with someone of your undesirable caliber.

Ah so even though polygamists don't present a potential health risk, like homosexuality does, they shouldn't be able to be with who they want?

Glad to know you think it's the duty of the govn to match people. H*ll we'll have healthcare paid by someone else, govt cheese in the form of foodstamps, free public housing, and now you think the govn should be able to match people.

You my friend are a ****.

I never said anything about the government matching people, way to completely miss the point. It was a statement on the general 1:1 ratio of men:women in the world. If you allow polygamy, chances are that ratio will be thrown off when it comes to marrying and undesirable people like yourself will never have anyone to marry. Most women would probably prefer to play second fiddle to another woman for a good man than be your wife. Not to mention that the tax implications of polygamy are just astounding.


Quote:
Quote:
Just like guns kill people.


Govn regulates who can own a gun and what kind of gun they can own.

Through some sort of education process, no? Maybe if we started some form of sex education that didn't involve abstinence only programs, the rate of HIV infection would decrease both for heterosexual and homosexual couples.


Quote:
Quote:
This is a terribly outdated and asinine argument, seeing how all blood is still tested before it is used for infusion. By your logic, though, we probably shouldn't let black people donate blood either as they are also at a higher risk of HIV.


Blood is tested because believe it or not someone may lie about whether or not they've met the guidelines for donating. The black people arguement doesn't hold water because a black male virgin sleeping with a female virgin are at no risk of decreasing their immune system or catching an std.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Therefore one can choose whether or not to engage in said act.

what about when two gay virgins sleep together? You can't take one subsection of a population and apply a trait from that subsection to the entire population you silly cnut.
#238 Oct 07 2009 at 5:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Glad to know you think it's the duty of the govn to match people. H*ll we'll have healthcare paid by someone else, govt cheese in the form of foodstamps, free public housing, and now you think the govn should be able to match people.

You my friend are a ****.

The ***** matched people up?

Maybe you should be calling the ***** instead of Date.com.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#239REDACTED, Posted: Oct 07 2009 at 5:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Bard,
#240 Oct 07 2009 at 6:02 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
And if you believe two homosexuals aren't necessarily going to engage in **** sex you're delusional.


Because you have so much experience with gay sex that you are more qualified to judge this scenario than the self-reports of gay and bisexual people on this board?

I mean if that's true then awesome, but admit it at least or something.
#241 Oct 07 2009 at 6:15 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Bard,

Quote:
what about when two gay virgins sleep together?


Perhaps you should research the health risks of engaging in **** sex before you ask such a stupid question. And if you believe two homosexuals aren't necessarily going to engage in **** sex you're delusional.

Quote:
Not to mention that the tax implications of polygamy are just astounding


The health risk implications for homosexuality far outweighs anything polygamists could do.
Perhaps you should research the health effects of engaging in any old sex.

...or the health risks of NOT engaging in sex.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#242 Oct 07 2009 at 6:18 AM Rating: Excellent
publiusvarus wrote:
Samy,

Quote:
Right. It's a valid question - not everyone who engages in **** sex has HIV


But everyone who engages in **** sex reduces their immune system making them more susceptible to std's. If homosexuality was a natural act rather than a deviant lifestyle choice this wouldn't happen.


Therefore, only lesbians should be allowed to get married.

Because, you know, heterosexual couples have **** sex to, you fucking moron.

gbaji wrote:
As I touched on earlier. The great irony of all of this is that the traditional pressures and incentives designed to force marriage on couples were mostly eliminated as a result of the feminist movement. They were seen as trapping women. They were trapped by men in marriage, and trapped by children if they were single. So they eliminated the social pressures. Then gradually created counter-inducements to marriage (stuff like deductions for dependents regardless of marital status, and social programs designed to give direct aid to single mothers). Now, they've got exactly what they wanted. A society in which marriage occurs far less often than it should.


Are women better off? I think they got the shaft really. Just ask all those single women stuck on welfare supporting their children without the fathers in the picture. Job well done? I think not. So how about we not compound our social mistakes over the last century by further watering down the meaning, purpose, and utility of marriage by making it just something any two people get if they decide to live together. I don't hold this position because I'm mean to gay people, but because I honestly believe that our society, and especially the women within our society are vastly worse off the more we attempt to divorce the concept of marriage from the obligations of men with regard to child rearing.


I swear to god, you are such a douche. No, really, you are. "Women are better off being 'owned' by men, really!"

Personally? I'd rather be on welfare raising a child than stuck in a loveless marriage with a man who hates me, hates my child, hates his life, and takes it out on everything and everyone around him. Yes, I think women are much better off.



Edited, Oct 7th 2009 9:18am by Belkira
#243 Oct 07 2009 at 6:21 AM Rating: Decent
-REDACTED-
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
Jumping in late here with my Smiley: twocents on gay marriage.

So anyway, first one has to determine whether they view marriage as primarily a religious matter or primarily a civil matter. In current U.S. society, it is rather treated as a hybrid matter, which tends to confuse things.

If it is a religious matter, gay marriage is not proscribed overall, but decided on a faith-by-faith basis. Therefore homosexuals can be married, so long as their faith allows. The government would not be involved, save to be notified of the marriage for tax purposes, etc. As such, with marriage as a religious institution, gay marriage = ok.

If, on the other hand, it is a civil matter, then religious figures should have no state authority to perform marriages, this would be done only by state-authorized representatives (Justice of the Peace, etc.) and, as (lets be honest here) the only real objection to gay marriage is from a religious/moral/ethical standpoint, the government would have no business restricting it, as the government has no business ruling on maters of religion or personal ethics. Therefore with marriage as a civil institution, gay marriage = ok.

Either way, gay marriage = ok.

Edited, Oct 7th 2009 10:24am by ShadorVIII
#244 Oct 07 2009 at 6:23 AM Rating: Decent
*
61 posts
Quote:
But everyone who engages in **** sex reduces their immune system making them more susceptible to std's. If homosexuality was a natural act rather than a deviant lifestyle choice this wouldn't happen.

Quote:
Homosexuality also leads to unfavorable health issues.

Quote:
Ah so even though polygamists don't present a potential health risk, like homosexuality does, they shouldn't be able to be with who they want?

Glad to know you think it's the duty of the govn to match people. H*ll we'll have healthcare paid by someone else, govt cheese in the form of foodstamps, free public housing, and now you think the govn should be able to match people.

You my friend are a ****.

Quote:
Blood is tested because believe it or not someone may lie about whether or not they've met the guidelines for donating. The black people arguement doesn't hold water because a black male virgin sleeping with a female virgin are at no risk of decreasing their immune system or catching an std.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Therefore one can choose whether or not to engage in said act.

Quote:
The health risk implications for homosexuality far outweighs anything polygamists could do.


I'd like to believe this is all just talk for a reaction, but then I'm reminded that there are actually people who truly believe this stuff. I'd really hate to see what that upbringing was like.
#245 Oct 07 2009 at 6:46 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
But everyone who engages in **** sex reduces their immune system making them more susceptible to std's.
This is completely and utterly false. Unprotected **** sex carries with it a higher transmission rate for std's. If two gay virgins slept together the health implications would be absolutely zero, because neither one of them has any std's. **** sex in no way lowers your immune system. Again utter garbage. Feel free to provide a citation to prove me wrong, but I know you won't as it doesn't exist. If std's didn't exist there would be absolutely no health implications involving **** sex, which is less then the health implication of pregnancy that is attacked to normal sex.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#246 Oct 07 2009 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Bard,

Quote:
what about when two gay virgins sleep together?


Perhaps you should research the health risks of engaging in **** sex before you ask such a stupid question. And if you believe two homosexuals aren't necessarily going to engage in **** sex you're delusional.

The risks are far less than that of a woman receiving HPV from a male.

Xsarus wrote:

If std's didn't exist there would be absolutely no health implications involving **** sex

I assumed he was referring to the slightly increased risk of developing colon cancer, but that may be giving him too much credit.

Edited, Oct 7th 2009 11:07am by Bardalicious
#247REDACTED, Posted: Oct 07 2009 at 8:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Like i've stated numerous times homosexuals engaging in **** sex is a health risk. ITS A FACT!!! This is why we shouldn't legitimize their behaviour.
#248 Oct 07 2009 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
None of which proves or even supports that **** sex in and of itself weakens the immune system.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat it; it's still untrue.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#249 Oct 07 2009 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You'd be better off fighting against tobacco subsidies if you legitimately were worried about legitimizing health risk behavior.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#250 Oct 07 2009 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
**** sex exposes participants to two principal dangers: infections, due to the high number of infectious microorganisms not found elsewhere on the body, and physical damage to the **** and the ****** due to their vulnerability


wikipedia



Quote:
Among the diseases with which **** sex is associated are HIV,[27] human papilloma virus (HPV) (which can increase risk for **** cancer)[28] typhoid fever[29] and various diseases associated with the infectious nature of fecal matter[citation needed] or sexual intercourse in general. Among these are: amoebiasis; chlamydia; cryptosporidiosis; E. coli infections; giardiasis; gonorrhea; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; hepatitis C; herpes simplex; human papillomavirus; Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8);[30] lymphogranuloma venereum; pubic lice; salmonellosis; shigella; syphilis; tuberculosis.[31][32][33]

The high concentration of white blood cells around the ******, together with the risk of cuts to the ****** and that one of the functions of the ****** is to absorb fluid, increases the risk of HIV transmission because the HIV retrovirus reproduces within the immune system's T-cells/CD4 cells. Use of condoms and other precautions are a medically recommended way to lessen risk of infections. Unprotected receptive **** sex is the most risky sexual behavior in terms of HIV transmission.[34][35][36]



Like i've stated numerous times homosexuals engaging in **** sex is a health risk. ITS A FACT!!! This is why we shouldn't legitimize their behaviour.
Seriously you want to outlaw everything that is a health risk?

Giving birth to morons shouldn't be legitimized, but it is - and here we are having to deal with the consequences....'sigh'.





Edited, Oct 7th 2009 6:30pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#251 Oct 07 2009 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Like i've stated numerous times homosexuals engaging in **** sex is a health risk. ITS A FACT!!! This is why we shouldn't legitimize their behaviour.


So is any penetrative sex. If pleasure doesn't justify a risk of stds then you shouldn't have recreational penetrative sex.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 271 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (271)