See... Don't try to be clever. Stick to what you're good at. And appearing clever isn't it. Unfortunately Conservatives are fairly easy to impress, as long as what they're been fed comes from a Conservative.
"Keep your Government hands off my medicare, indeed."
I've lost track of the number of times my parents, or one of my Conservative friends, have sent me one of the Right-Wing, anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi, or anti-Democrat emails that Snopes has already debunked. (Usually YEARS ago.) If you think what you're saying (or reading) is too good to be true, and no Liberal could ever possibly have an answer for it?
Keep quiet, and do some research first.
You missed something really obvious. You're wrong. And it will take someone like me about five seconds to figure that out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2/27/13
Morning Weight: 208.8
Pounds Down: 6
Pounds to Go: 34
Days remaining: 204
Gym: Not tonight. (DW has Akido/Iado.)
That posterboard is especially stupid because A)it's fiction, B) the "chosen one" theme of the story would dictate that if Harry was never born, then obviously he wouldn't be "chosen", and there would be a different prophesy in the first place, and C) because of "B", it's entirely possible that someone else was supposed to stop Voldemort already, and Harry inherited the job.
ReplyDeleteI've heard this same argument on a personal level: "what if your mother had an abortion?" Well, what if? Most obviously, my parents weren't in a position where that was a consideration. If we want to play the "what if" game, what if my dad was absentee and my mother was an abusive alcoholic? That changes things a bit, since I could have continued that cycle of abuse up to the point of being a serial killer. That's the flipside to the argument that abortion is going to prevent someone from curing cancer, etc. What if Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot had been aborted? That's a lot of life saved for three abortions.
What really cracks me up about this mindset is the egotism, though. "If I didn't exist, then...(GASP!)" Who cares? One only thinks that's relevant because they've established a life, and are looking at it from that personal perspective. By that logic, we should be mass-breeding in order to maximize the opportunity for people to appreciate their own lives. It's absurd in the extreme. If I didn't exist, then I wouldn't know what I had been missing, because I wouldn't exist!
"That changes things a bit, since I could have continued that cycle of abuse up to the point of being a serial killer." ... The problem with that logic is that you are saying that all children of abusive parents should just be locked up because they have no CHOICE in how their lives develop. Which is completely wrong, but I understand why you would use that equalization: It helps reduce YOUR responsibility for YOUR actions. Which is a key democratic position.
Delete"What if Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot had been aborted?" ... Then the world would have a population of about 200 million more (factoring in time lapsed since your reference).
"... The problem with that logic is that you are saying that all children of abusive parents should just be locked up because they have no CHOICE in how their lives develop."
DeleteThe problem with your logic is you're setting up a strawman. I never said that, nor did I imply it. There's nothing in my comment that strays from the concept of personal choice.
"... Then the world would have a population of about 200 million more (factoring in time lapsed since your reference)."
Are you claiming that's good or bad?
"Are you claiming that's good or bad?" .. In what context?
Delete"The problem with your logic is you're setting up a strawman." ... I'm continuing yours.
"Most obviously, my parents weren't in a position where that was a consideration." ... Neither were the parents of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot.
Delete" .. In what context?"
DeleteIn your personal view. What "context" are 200 million people supposed to be in, and why wouldn't you know, since you're the one that made the comment?
"... I'm continuing yours."
Explain what "strawman" you're claiming I set up, please. I don't think you really know what the term means.
"... Neither were the parents of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot."
Assuming that's true, so what? Is that supposed to contradict my point in some heretofore unstated manner?
"Assuming that's true, so what? Is that supposed to contradict my point in some heretofore unstated manner?" ... Yes, and it worked.
Delete"... Yes, and it worked."
DeleteBut you can't explain how? I'll just take your word for it (sarcasm).
And you can't answer the other two questions? You can't explain the "context" question, nor the "strawman" you claimed? Why not?
"And you can't answer the other two questions?" ... Are you assuming I plan on answer them? I grow board of toying with you after a while. You're fun, but not quite up to my level.
Delete"... Are you assuming I plan on answer them?"
DeleteNo, because I don't think you can. Nor can you explain how your comment above "worked". I find that amusing since you claim I've proven myself incapable of answering questions and say I never address your points.
Sounds like your taking your ball and running home.
You wish.
DeleteI literally could not care less. You made a reply on the 17th, and five of your posts later are reduced to a two-word, grade-school response. You couldn't do a better job of showing you never had a point if you admitted it outright.
DeleteThat's some "level" you've displayed (sarcasm). Want to keep digging?
"I literally could not care less." ... Oh, you care. You care so much that you keep coming back asking for things that are unrelated to anything being discussed and whining when you don't get them.
DeleteLet's recap:
1) you're a bigot (proven and admitted)
2) you're a hypocrite (proven over and over)
3) you're a liar (proven and admitted)
4) you're lazy (assuming)
5) you're a democrat (admitted)
Do you NEED any more reasons for you to stop posting?
" It helps reduce YOUR responsibility for YOUR actions. Which is a key democratic position." ... That is what I said. You dodged the question saying it was a strawman. Explain how it is a strawman argument after you bring Hitler into the discussion. Hitler is a strawman argument, but at least I addressed it. You, on the other hand, whine about strawman arguments. Is that typical of your ilk? Or are you going to take responsibility for statements that YOU make? I expect you'll continue to cry about someone not answering an unrelated non-issue. You sure cry a lot, is that the inner woman in you? Are you gay?
"Let's recap:"
DeleteIt's pretty hard to take determinations seriously from someone who proudly admits to being bigoted against Democrats and atheists. You don't understand the words you're using, and every time I challenge you to demonstrate "bigot", "hypocrite" or "liar", you either ignore it or fail miserably. You can continue to do so as long as you feel like engaging in such masochism.
"You dodged the question saying it was a strawman."
No, I said this was a strawman:"... The problem with that logic is that you are saying that all children of abusive parents should just be locked up because they have no CHOICE in how their lives develop." I neither said nor suggested such a thing. Further, an expression of your bigoted views of Democrats isn't a "question".
"Hitler is a strawman argument, but at least I addressed it."
How was that a strawman argument? Be specific, using the actual definition of the fallacy.
"I expect you'll continue to cry about someone not answering an unrelated non-issue. You sure cry a lot, is that the inner woman in you? Are you gay?"
You seem very flustered today. Problems at home?
"It's pretty hard to take determinations seriously from someone who proudly admits to being bigoted against Democrats and atheists." ... I know what you mean. I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago because of those same reasons: you are a hater and bigot.
Delete"You seem very flustered today. Problems at home?" ... You're avoiding the question again. Are you gay?
"... I know what you mean."
DeleteThanks for admitting you're a bigot, yet again. Too easy.
"... You're avoiding the question again. Are you gay?"
No, not that your unrelated question really requires a serious response. How does it go again? Something about attacking people who point out your failures?
Speaking of which, where was the "strawman" you claimed I made, and which I challenged you to demonstrate? Shall I take your silence as an admission that you know you were blowing smoke?
"where was the "strawman" you claimed I made" ... Doofus, I already explained that to you. How many times do I need to do that? I guess it's kind of like you saying that I've admitted being a bigot "YET AGAIN" while you continue to whine about providing proof that I admitted being a bigot.
DeleteWhen did you make the choice to not be gay? How do you know you don't have a suppressed gene that indicates you are gay? Is there a 'test' you do to determin whether you are gay?
"... Doofus, I already explained that to you."
DeleteNo, you did not. Read it again:"How was that a strawman argument? Be specific, using the actual definition of the fallacy." You didn't respond to that.
"I guess it's kind of like you saying that I've admitted being a bigot "YET AGAIN" while you continue to whine about providing proof that I admitted being a bigot."
Two different things. You've clearly admitted to bigotry regarding Democrats and atheists (and homosexuality, really). I was asking why your opposition to polygamy wasn't bigotry on your part, specifically.
"When did you make the choice to not be gay?"
I never had to make a choice, since I've never been attracted to my own gender.
"How do you know you don't have a suppressed gene that indicates you are gay?"
Are you claiming people are gay and have absolutely no idea whatsoever?
"Is there a 'test' you do to determin whether you are gay?"
Yes. If you're attracted to people of the same gender and not those of the opposite gender, you're gay.
"I was asking why your opposition to polygamy wasn't bigotry on your part, specifically." ... I know what you were asking, doofus. I already explained that, by your standards, I am a bigot regarding anything immoral while I use religion as my basis. How are you having such a hard time understanding that? My 8-year old could understand simplistic shit like that, but you can't?
Delete"Are you claiming people are gay and have absolutely no idea whatsoever?" ... Isn't that what you are claiming when you ask people (right wingers) at what age they 'chose' to be attracted to one gender or another?
"Yes. If you're attracted to people of the same gender and not those of the opposite gender, you're gay." ... Well, you must be gay then. You have ONLY responded to male posters (here). You have never responded to female posters (here). You MUST be attracted to males. So that means you are gay.
Hey, I got no problem with that. But if being gay so offends you then you may not want to pretend to support them as much as you do.
"I already explained that, by your standards, I am a bigot regarding anything immoral while I use religion as my basis."
DeleteI'm not asking for your interpretation of my standards. I'm asking about yours. How you can claim not to be a bigot, yourself, talking about yourself. Very simple.
"... Isn't that what you are claiming when you ask people (right wingers) at what age they 'chose' to be attracted to one gender or another?"
No, and I'm sure you won't explain where you came up with that interpretation. The point of that question is to show that people don't choose to be straight, so they don't choose to be gay.
"... Well, you must be gay then. You have ONLY responded to male posters (here)."
I didn't know "anonymous" was a traditionally male name. Apparently I have to specify "sexual attraction" now, even in a discussion about sexual orientation. I'm also not sure how you get away from the fact that you responded to me on this thread, and my name is distinctly male.
"But if being gay so offends you then you may not want to pretend to support them as much as you do."
That's new. A non sequitur responding to yourself. Interesting.
"I'm asking about yours. How you can claim not to be a bigot, yourself, talking about yourself. Very simple." ... How is it any different? I think murder is a sin. I do not like that lifestyle at all and I would never represent it in a positive way. I would even talk about that lifestyle negatively because it is a sin and immoral. No different for homosexuality: I think it is a sin and immoral. When YOU interpret my behavior towards the homosexual lifestyle you call it bigoted. I call it normal. Why would I ever accept an immoral lifestyle? However, YOU accept immorality as normal and make your judgment on me being a bigot based on that. You also make moral judgments based on popularity of the lifestyle (homosexuality/polygamy). Obviously, with standards, such as yours, I am a bigot towards anything you decide. I do not see myself as a bigot towards an immoral lifestyle, I just consider it another immoral lifestyle that should not be promoted just because it is popular among it's brethren.
DeleteSo, are you happy with that response?
"The point of that question is to show that people don't choose to be straight, so they don't choose to be gay." ... Well, how do you suppose it happens? Does it happen when the genes take control during the formative years?
"... How is it any different? I think murder is a sin."
DeleteYou're comparing polygamy to murder? And I'm supposed to be a bigot? And it's different because your interpretation of my views is not the same as your views. Your perception of whether you're a bigot or not doesn't depend on anything I say. Or, it shouldn't.
"You also make moral judgments based on popularity of the lifestyle (homosexuality/polygamy)."
Lie. You have nothing to base that on whatsoever.
"I do not see myself as a bigot towards an immoral lifestyle, I just consider it another immoral lifestyle that should not be promoted just because it is popular among it's brethren."
So, you think polygamy is immoral and therefore shouldn't be legal. How, in your view (hint:nothing to do with my views) are you not a bigot for that? What makes it so that your faith makes anything you believe free from criticism?
"... Well, how do you suppose it happens?"
Like I said earlier:"It's probably a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors".
"What makes it so that your faith makes anything you believe free from criticism?" ... I have never said I am free from criticism because of my faith. I have said why you are going to call me a bigot.
DeleteThen you have no valid argument against polygamy, by your own admission. So what's the point of your extended accusations of me on the issue?
DeleteThat doesn't make any sense at all. Are you just giving up?
DeleteNo. Your faith isn't an objective argument against anything. If you can dismiss legal concerns as bigotry, then your religious arguments aren't valid by any stretch of the imagination. So, again, what is the point of your extended accusations of bigotry against me?
DeleteYeah, you're just floundering now. You want me to give an objective argument while NOT using the actual reason? I dismiss 'straw-man legal concerns'. If you had an actual legal concern then it would be considered. But, you haven't brought any viable legal concerns, yet. Do you have any?
Delete"You want me to give an objective argument while NOT using the actual reason?"
DeleteWhy is there a difference between those two concepts?
"I dismiss 'straw-man legal concerns'."
What does "straw-man" have to do with anything? That sounds like you're using the term incorrectly.
"Do you have any?"
Do you have the proof that gay marriage is clogging up the court systems in states where it's legal? Or any justification for your belief that polygamy will be minimal? Your arguments have failed. And it's not possible to take promises of objectivity and fairness seriously from someone who claims that I live in New York because they couldn't find the moral fortitude to back off of an absurd ad hominem attack about drunkenness. When you stop behaving like a petulant child, then you might have some chance of claiming to be a rational adult without people laughing at you.
Meanwhile, you can't justify your own opposition to polygamy on any objective level, so your interrogation of me is wildly hypocritical.
And everyone knows how much you hate hypocrites.
"Why is there a difference between those two concepts?" ... So you want me to make shit up and use that as the reason to oppose a sexual perversion ... like you do?
Delete"That sounds like you're using the term incorrectly." ... That's because your reading comprehension abilities are nill. And bigots usually don't understand why their ideals are bigoted, so naturally, you would not understand the use of "straw-man".
"Do you have the proof that gay marriage is clogging up the court systems in states where it's legal?" ... When did THAT become a parameter of that argument? The concern is that gay marriage lawsuits are clogging up the court system NOW. Use google. I'm not your mommy. I've brought actual evidence, you choose to ignore it and whine about it. Sorry, doofus, you lose on that point.
"Or any justification for your belief that polygamy will be minimal?" ... Well, let's use something that isn't used by democrats very often: FACTS. There is 1.4% of the Utah population living in polygamist households (40,000 people) and there is 3.4% of the entire American population (313,914,040) who identify as being gay (10,673,000 people). Let's see, there are almost 11 MILLION gays nationwide and only 40,000 polygamists. I cannot find demographics for polygamy, however, if we ASSUME that EVERY state has 40,000 polygamists, then there would be 2,000,000 nationwide. That's one fifth of the number of homosexuals. Now, what were you asking about proof that lawsuits by polygamists would be minimal compared to homosexuals?
James Brooke. "Utah Struggles With a Revival of Polygamy. " New York Times [New York, N.Y.] 23 August 1998, Late Edition (East Coast): 12. ProQuest Newsstand. ProQuest. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 11 Dec. 2007
Gates, Gary J.; Newport, Frank (October 18, 2012). "Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT". Gallup.
"And it's not possible to take promises of objectivity and fairness seriously from someone who claims that I live in New York because they couldn't find the moral fortitude to back off of an absurd ad hominem attack about drunkenness." ... What OTHER excuse is there for the way you act while posting? You probably are drunk right now. I know how you older military people are. I was born at night, but not last night.
"Meanwhile, you can't justify your own opposition to polygamy on any objective level, so your interrogation of me is wildly hypocritical." ... I don't think you're using that word correctly. Do you know what it means? Otherwise, you need to fully explain how I am being hypocritical towards sexually deviant lifestyles. Are you capable of doing that?
"And everyone knows how much you hate hypocrites." ... See, you're lying again. I don't hate the hypocrite ... I hate the lifestyle. That's why I feel so bad for people who choose to be democrats. But, it's the choice they make in spite of the humiliation caused by that choice.
"Do you have the proof that gay marriage is clogging up the court systems in states where it's legal?" ... BTW, that was never my claim. My claim is that they will clog the court system up before legality (like the proof of possible congestion that you cannot bring regarding polygamy). We both claim the 'fight for legality' is the context of our claims. You want to change that parameter this late in the game. Not very honest of you.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/illinois-lawsuits-challenge-gay-marriage-ban.html?_r=0
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-13-gay-marriage_N.htm
http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2012/12/federal-court-rejects-nevada-same-sex-marraige-lawsuit.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/gays-in-military-doma-lawsuit_n_1034716.html
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5901/Gay-Lawsuits-Target-Bed-and-Breakfasts-Churches-Nationwide.aspx
Can you bring ONE article that shows the "potential" fear you have of polygamists? Just ONE lawsuit that backs up the unsubstantiated fear you have of the many lawsuits that will clog the court system, as you claim they will.
"... So you want me to make shit up and use that as the reason to oppose a sexual perversion... like you do?"
DeleteNon sequitur. That didn't follow what I asked you at all.
"And bigots usually don't understand why their ideals are bigoted, so naturally, you would not understand the use of "straw-man"."
If you could explain it, you would. But you didn't.
" ... When did THAT become a parameter of that argument?"
When you claimed that gay marriage was going to change the framework of marriage and clog the court systems if nationally legalized. You made knee-jerk "gay marriage" references to concerns about polygamy, then you want to ask why your comparisons are relevant?
"The concern is that gay marriage lawsuits are clogging up the court system NOW."
Which would end with legalization, since there would nothing to file suit over anymore. Not compelling as an argument against gay marriage.
"Now, what were you asking about proof that lawsuits by polygamists would be minimal compared to homosexuals?"
I absolutely love that you went to all that effort when your argument has been destroyed ahead of time. It's currently illegal. Legalizing polygamy is a hypothetical, and you can't possibly assert that a mere handful of people are going to take advantage of government benefits when given the opportunity. Again, the problem isn't people who are truly inclined to polygamy or polyamory, but those who are going to claim they are in order to double (triple, quadruple, etc) their benefits. Also, since you've failed to demonstrate any difference between the legal dynamics of gay marriage vs. straight marriage, the idea that gay marriage is in any way comparable to the legal complications of polygamy is absurd. If it were true, it would be true of all marriages already.
"You probably are drunk right now."
There's no alcohol where I am. Want to go around on that again? If you're familiar with the military, and you have half a brain, you should be able to figure out why there's no alcohol where I am.
"Otherwise, you need to fully explain how I am being hypocritical towards sexually deviant lifestyles."
No, I don't. You're hypocritical for calling me a bigot over legal concerns when you oppose polygamy based on faith. ("... I have never said I am free from criticism because of my faith.")
"... See, you're lying again. I don't hate the hypocrite ... I hate the lifestyle."
Hypocrisy is an behavior, not a lifestyle. Besides, distinguishing between "hypocrites" and "people who are hypocritical" is semantics. That's a good way to admit defeat, right?
"... BTW, that was never my claim."
This wasn't you?:"... It is easy. Just look at all the court cases STILL going on because of gay marriage issues. Even in the legal states, you still have a congestion of the court system." http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/republicans-are-scum.html?showComment=1363777119001#c6215283854316249331
"Can you bring ONE article that shows the "potential" fear you have of polygamists? Just ONE lawsuit that backs up the unsubstantiated fear you have of the many lawsuits that will clog the court system, as you claim they will."
Can you explain how multiple spouses are going to file for a claim to rights when polygamy is illegal? Apparently you've forgotten the definition of "hypothetical" yet again, besides the fact that you brought up the topic. If you didn't want to deal in hypotheticals, then exercise better judgment when broaching new subjects.
"Which would end with legalization, since there would nothing to file suit over anymore. Not compelling as an argument against gay marriage." ... Except for your MAIN concern about polygamy: unhappy spouses will go 'sue happy'. How can you guarantee that unhappy gay spouses won't do the same after gay marriage is legalized?
Delete"Legalizing polygamy is a hypothetical, and you can't possibly assert that a mere handful of people are going to take advantage of government benefits when given the opportunity." ... That's what you're doing (asserting ZERO or only a handful of gays will sue to end their marriages and/or get money that's owed them by the government).
" Also, since you've failed to demonstrate any difference between the legal dynamics of gay marriage vs. straight marriage," ... I did do that. I brought the laws that say ONE man and ONE woman. Those are laws, not ideals.
"You're hypocritical for calling me a bigot over legal concerns when you oppose polygamy based on faith." ... How so? I oppose all sexual deviance's for the same reason. You use the same reasons to support one, but oppose the other.
"Can you explain how multiple spouses are going to file for a claim to rights when polygamy is illegal?" ... Can you justify your unfounded fear? No? Then you are a bigot. Since NO cases have happened, then you cannot claim future clogged court systems from a simple fear you have of a sexually deviant lifestyle.
"... Except for your MAIN concern about polygamy: unhappy spouses will go 'sue happy'."
DeleteAnd the difference, for the umpteenth time, is that the court problem occurs after legalization, since you would be giving multiple people the same rights that were designed for one person to control.
Your concern about litigation for the right to gay marriage is absurd, because it's not a problem in itself. Anything where people are fighting for something is going to involve using the process in some way or another. "What's with trying to end school segregation? All these court cases." It's meaningless. You have to argue why people shouldn't be taking action, not arguing simply that action is being taken.
"How can you guarantee that unhappy gay spouses won't do the same after gay marriage is legalized?"
Since there's nobody else granted their default rights, who would they sue?
"... That's what you're doing (asserting ZERO or only a handful of gays will sue to end their marriages and/or get money that's owed them by the government)."
Straight people get divorced, so the potential problem of "sue to end their marriages" is idiotic. As to money that's owed them by the government, I'll repeat this:"You have to argue why people shouldn't be taking action, not arguing simply that action is being taken."
"... I did do that. I brought the laws that say ONE man and ONE woman."
That has nothing to do with effects of law. Think on this:you change marriage so that there are no gender distinctions on a marriage application. With me so far? Two consenting adults. Now, answer this:what else has to change because of that? That's how you address my question, not talking about what the law currently involves.
" ... How so? I oppose all sexual deviance's for the same reason."
That has nothing to do with it. You can oppose everyone in the world and you can still be a hypocrite, because you can't legitimately criticize me for a rational opposition to something when you have a religious opposition to the same thing. If you really think people have a right to polygamy, then your religious concerns take a back seat. If you don't think people have that right, then you can't criticize anyone for religious objections, never mind legal ones. Essentially your stance is that concerns about the legal system is irrational, but belief in a system of faith that says polygamy is wrong makes for a valid argument.
"You use the same reasons to support one, but oppose the other."
No, you simply inject your beliefs into what I say. My argument is that gay marriage carries no harm and homosexuality is not a choice. That doesn't apply to polygamy. Polygamy changes the legal framework. That doesn't apply to gay marriage. You've objected to my reasons, but you can't say that I'm using the "same reasons".
"Since NO cases have happened, then you cannot claim future clogged court systems from a simple fear you have of a sexually deviant lifestyle."
No cases could possibly happen, since polygamy is illegal. Your standard is self-serving and impossible for you to justify. And again, I couldn't care less if people engage in polyamory. That's the lifestyle. Polygamy is a legal concept, which is not the same thing at all.
"Your concern about litigation for the right to gay marriage is absurd, because it's not a problem in itself." ... Neither is polygamy. The key being "in itself". That means everyone is happy. You are ASSUMING there will be uncontrolled bitterness within a polygamist relationship and that there won't be any within a homosexual relationship. And that is where you bigoted rewards are reaped from.
Delete"That has nothing to do with effects of law." ... But it IS THE LAW and that is what you are whining about. Deal with it. If you want to add in "effects" then we can go in a completely different direction in this conversation. But, YOU wanted the LAW. That's what I brought. Now you discount the law and bring another aspect into it. Welcome to the land of the losers.
"because you can't legitimately criticize me for a rational opposition to something when you have a religious opposition to the same thing." ... I'm sorry, but you are not "rational" in your opposition. You use "reasons" to accept gay marriage, while not accepting the same "reasons" to accept polygamy. THAT is hypocrisy.
"If you really think people have a right to polygamy, then your religious concerns take a back seat." ... I do not think people have a right to polygamy. I also don't think people have a right to gay marriage. My religious "concerns" give me that right. Just as your non-religious "concerns" give you the right for your opinion. What's your point?
"My argument is that gay marriage carries no harm and homosexuality is not a choice." ... And, that differs from polygamy in what way (from your perspective)? How can you say they aren't "born" wanting several spouses? Just like you say gays are born wanting the same sex. What "harm" is caused to you by polygamy? I have pointed out (and you accepted) that the "LEGAL" frame-work is one man / one woman. That point is not valid.
"Your standard is self-serving and impossible for you to justify." ... Again, so is yours. How can you say that any number of people will instantly start scamming the system simply because they are allowed to marry more than one person? Justify THAT position that you have expressed numerous times.
"Neither is polygamy."
DeleteI'm not talking about litigation in order to acheive polygamy as a problem, the way you're talking about gay marriage.
"You are ASSUMING there will be uncontrolled bitterness within a polygamist relationship and that there won't be any within a homosexual relationship."
There's going to be bitterness in all kinds of relationships. There's no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships in that regard. Polygamy is different. I never said there wouldn't be bitterness in gay relationships, but it's not adding to any problem.
"If you want to add in "effects" then we can go in a completely different direction in this conversation."
That's been the point all along. You're really claiming at this stage of the conversation that it's all about what the law currently states? That's insane. You're just deflecting because you can't answer the question and come up with any way that the effects of gay marriage are any different from straight marriage. Do you realize you claimed above that you addressed that, now you're saying it's tangential?
"... I'm sorry, but you are not "rational" in your opposition."
You don't have the credibility to make that judgment.
"What's your point?"
That your religious views don't mean you're not a bigot.
"... And, that differs from polygamy in what way (from your perspective)?"
Polygamy severely alters the framework of marriage, creating serious legal issues. Also, anyone "born" (your term) inclined to polyamory can get married to someone that they love, of the opposite sex, and then have other partners involved in the relationship. There's no meaningful difference there, while the difference between gay couples not being able to get married and able to get married is much more significant.
"What "harm" is caused to you by polygamy?"
The standard is that it has to harm me? Why would that be?
"I have pointed out (and you accepted) that the "LEGAL" frame-work is one man / one woman."
Lie. I did not accept "one man / one woman" as a legal framework.
"How can you say that any number of people will instantly start scamming the system simply because they are allowed to marry more than one person?"
For the same reason shops put locks on their doors at night. Would you like to say that welfare recipients should write their own checks? Apparently you forgot how easy it is to test your suggestion that people are pure of heart.
Did you mean to agree that your standard was absurd? Or would you like to explain how the lack of lawsuits currently seen in polygamous marriages has any bearing on anything, since courts don't recognize polygamy as a valid construct?
"Polygamy is different." ... No, it isn't. You haven't been able to show any differences that don't apply to gay marriage.
Delete"You're really claiming at this stage of the conversation that it's all about what the law currently states?" ... I've claimed those laws before. You just refuse to acknowledge the laws as they are written. You seem to think those laws don't substantiate my claims. Probably because those laws blow your argument out of the water.
"That your religious views don't mean you're not a bigot." ... That's what I've been saying all along, doofus, are you just 'getting' that now?
"Lie. I did not accept "one man / one woman" as a legal framework." ... Yes, you accepted it when you tried to deflect that reality into a statement about "the effects of the law" (2 posts ago). By not refuting 1 man/1 woman at that time means you accept that it is the law, but you want to whine about a different aspect of it.
"You don't have the credibility to make that judgment." .. Ooo, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
"The standard is that it has to harm me? Why would that be?" ... Because you are part of society. If you're going to claim harm to society (millions of lawsuits by disgruntled ex's) you need to provide some kind of evidence to support that claim. If there is no harm to you, then there is no harm to others and no harm to society. What harm do they cause you?
"but those who are going to claim they are in order to double (triple, quadruple, etc) their benefits." ... Didn't I just bring the actual FACTS about the population of gays and polygamists in the US? Did you see that there are more than 10 TIMES the amount of homosexuals in the US than there are polygamists. That means an increase of only 5-fold would still be better than the expect court congestion caused by a population sub-section that is more than 10 TIMES larger. So with the approval of gay marriage there will be an INCREASE of court cases twice what would happen with the approval of polygamy. There goes your LAST argument point. The court cases caused by legal sexual deviances would be worse because of gay marriage.
"... No, it isn't. You haven't been able to show any differences that don't apply to gay marriage."
DeleteIn polygamy, you're granting marital rights designated to one spouse to any number of multiple spouses. Apparently you've even forgotten what "polygamy" is at this point.
"You just refuse to acknowledge the laws as they are written."
Where did I do that, and why would I? The current laws don't damage my argument in the slightest, and I can guarantee you can't demonstrate otherwise.
"... That's what I've been saying all along, doofus, are you just 'getting' that now?"
No, you've been talking about whether or not other people "deem" you a bigot.
"... Yes, you accepted it when you tried to deflect that reality into a statement about "the effects of the law""
No, I specifically told you the framework was "two consenting adults, after you tried claiming "one man / one woman" was the framework (""Two consenting adults" is the framework in question. Not "ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN". No other laws are affected by gay marriage, because the "two consenting adults" framework is the same.") Further, this was the quote you replied "one man / one woman" to:"Also, since you've failed to demonstrate any difference between the legal dynamics of gay marriage vs. straight marriage,". So, my discussion of the effects of the law is exactly what I was already talking about, not a deflection.
".. Ooo, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?"
No, you don't even have the credibility for that.
"If you're going to claim harm to society (millions of lawsuits by disgruntled ex's) you need to provide some kind of evidence to support that claim."
You didn't say "society", though, hence the question. And you're back to demanding evidence regarding a hypothetical, something that hasn't happened. You should probably bookmark the definition of that word on your computer desktop, for easy reference.
"If there is no harm to you, then there is no harm to others and no harm to society."
That may be the dumbest thing you've ever said. 9/11 didn't harm me, personally. If slavery was reinstituted, it wouldn't have a direct effect on my life. I'm pretty sure you don't want to really claim that something has to harm me in order to harm society.
"So with the approval of gay marriage there will be an INCREASE of court cases twice what would happen with the approval of polygamy."
Court cases involving what? Remember, you want people to "choose" to be straight. So either people enter gay marriage or straight marriage. What court activity is prompted by gay marriage that doesn't come along with straight marriage anyway?
Also notice that you brought up court congestion in response to a quote about benefits abuse, so how that was supposed to destroy that argument is unclear. I'm guessing it's because you don't want to address my response to your suggestion that people are inherently trustworthy.
"No, you've been talking about whether or not other people "deem" you a bigot." ... Exactly. Is there a difference? If so, fully explain and use complete references and exhibits.
Delete"No other laws are affected by gay marriage," ... There, you admit it is the LAW again. You said "other" laws, that means you accept that "1 man/1 woman" IS LAW and you've now admitted that twice.
"Court cases involving what? " .. The same kind of cases that would involve your feared polygamy.
"What court activity is prompted by gay marriage that doesn't come along with straight marriage anyway?" ... You tell me. You seem to have more experience with homosexuality than me. Perhaps you can fill us in (so to speak) and fully explain that "activity".
"I'm guessing it's because you don't want to address my response to your suggestion that people are inherently trustworthy." ... Now you're changing the subject again?
"... Exactly. Is there a difference?"
DeleteBetween being called something and actually warranting that label? Yes, there's a difference. Exhibit:You are a democrat.
"You said "other" laws, that means you accept that "1 man/1 woman" IS LAW and you've now admitted that twice."
I'd love for you to show where I denied what the law currently consists of. That doesn't make "1 man/1 woman" the framework of the law.
" .. The same kind of cases that would involve your feared polygamy."
So, people are going to have their multiple spouses fighting over rights and property in gay marriage? How do you figure that?
"... You tell me."
No, your argument depends on it. You want to cite gay marriage for every concern about polygamy, so you explain what court activity is going to happen with gay marriage that doesn't already occur in straight marriage.
"... Now you're changing the subject again?"
People's basic nature is fully relevant to an argument regarding what people will do when they have the opportunity to acheive personal gain. If you want to contest that, I'd like to see how.
"That doesn't make "1 man/1 woman" the framework of the law." ... I don't see where it can be considered anything but "framework of the law".
Delete"So, people are going to have their multiple spouses fighting over rights and property in gay marriage?" ... No, there's going to be (hypothetically) an immense number of divorces and remarriages happening and each time another "ex-spouse" can claim those benefits. With there being (at least) ten times the number of homosexuals than there are polygamists, then even if polygamists go sue-happy as you predict, there will still be more court cases CAUSED by legalized gay marriage. And, since you big fear (recently) is that polygamists will go sue-happy if legalized, the same hypothetical can be applied to gay marriage.
"You want to cite gay marriage for every concern about polygamy, so you explain what court activity is going to happen with gay marriage that doesn't already occur in straight marriage." ... I'm not claiming these events don't happen in normal marriages. I'm saying your hypothetical about polygamy causing great financial stress on the US economy can be equally hypothesized with gay marriage. And, with there being more than 10 MILLION more homosexuals than polygamists, the "potential" for benefit/medical abuse greatly increases with legalized gay marriage. Yet, you fear polygamy because of that hypothetical, yet welcome gay marriage in spite of the greater potential hypothetical.
"... I don't see where it can be considered anything but "framework of the law"."
DeleteIs that your opinion, or are you still trying to claim I "admitted" that?
"... No, there's going to be (hypothetically) an immense number of divorces and remarriages happening and each time another "ex-spouse" can claim those benefits."
Why would this happen more in gay marriage than straight marriage?
"... I'm not claiming these events don't happen in normal marriages."
Then if people "chose" to be straight, and ended up getting married, you'd have the exact same problem on the heterosexual side. Remember, you said "the same kind of cases" would happen as what could happen for polygamy. If the "same kind of cases" are occuring already, that would be a much, much better argument for you to demonstrate. But, strangely, you haven't, so I have to conclude it's not the "same" at all.
"Why would this happen more in gay marriage than straight marriage?" ... Alright. Why don't you look and see what the divorce rate is for normal marriages. Then get back with me with that latest whine.
Delete"... Alright. Why don't you look and see what the divorce rate is for normal marriages."
DeleteWhat difference does the divorce rate make? If it's going to be equally unstable for gay marriage, then you're not explaining what the problem is. People could "choose" to be straight and get married and divorced, or "choose" to be gay and get married and divorced. It works out the same.
And if there's supposed to be a higher divorce rate in gay marriage, then the question stands. Either way, your response doesn't explain your position at all.
"What difference does the divorce rate make?" ... Your big concern about the 'dangers' of allowing polygamy is the 'created' court cases where there was none. Your contention is that there will be so much 'scamming the system' going on that it will bankrupt America (so to speak). Then you overlook the REALITY that half of the newly allowed gay marriages will CREATE lawsuits that were not there before.
DeleteTry to explain that if possible.
"Then you overlook the REALITY that half of the newly allowed gay marriages will CREATE lawsuits that were not there before."
DeleteWhich are the same lawsuits which would be there if they "chose" to be straight and get married to someone of the opposite gender. Yes or no? If "no", please specify why. If "yes", then kindly explain what difference it makes whether the divorce comes from a straight marriage or gay marriage.
They would NOT be the same lawsuits. Gay people would not marry opposite their desires just to 'be' married. Only a doofus would think of something like that. All those gay marriage divorces would be NEW cases CREATED by the changing of the laws. None of them would have occurred otherwise.
DeleteSo, what was your big fear of polygamy, again? Was it that they would CREATE new lawsuits that would clog the courts as they try to scam the system out of all the benefits they "hypothetically" would get if allowed to marry? You never did say how many you anticipated to do that, but I can bring statistics that show millions of new court cases "hypothetically" could be CREATED by legal gay marriage.
How do you justify that reasoning?
"They would NOT be the same lawsuits. Gay people would not marry opposite their desires just to 'be' married."
DeleteWait, what? You're saying people can't choose to be straight, now? Note that you dodged the question. I asked "yes or no" regarding whether the number of lawsuits would somehow be different if people chose to be straight and get married to someone of the opposite gender. Saying that gay people wouldn't choose to do that does not address that.
You're missing the point, deliberately, in my estimation. Try looking at it this way:imagine there are no gay people at all. Everyone is straight (this is a hypothetical, still, not a claim). Now, would you argue that only a certain number of people can get married, because otherwise there might be too many divorces?
Because that's what you're essentially arguing here. If you look at that situation above and say everyone should be allowed to get married, then you're already taking into account the people who are, in reality, gay and would be married if gay marriage is nationally legalized. So nothing is being "created" compared to what is surely your ideal situation of a purely straight society that divides itself into loving family units.
Besides that, why does divorce necessarily involve court activity? My wife divorced her previous husband with no judge involved. Your entire premise is deeply flawed.
Somehow, I expected you to completely not understand what was said. You have a mind like a steel trap, you know that? So, let's try this where even you can understand.
DeleteThere are an estimated 11 million homosexuals in America. Right now, none have plans on getting divorced. However, if you make gay marriage legal, then many of those 11 million will file for divorce (BTW: they file at the courthouse, hence "court system"). NONE of those divorce cases would have happened if gay marriage was not legal. ALL of those cases would occur AFTER it has been made legal. That means ALL of those divorce cases would be CREATED by the new law. That is what you rely on to denounce marriage rights for polygamists. But once your idea got shot down, I understand why you needed to deflect and change the subject. Because you got slammed again in this discussion on gay marriage rights. You've woefully lost every single point you tried to make.
The funny thing is that you just got done whining about how often normal marriages end in divorce and that shouldn't be a reason to exclude gays. But, you completely missed that the POINT was that all those divorces within gay marriages would be NEW cases that would cause immense congestion within the court system. THAT was your last reason to not allow polygamy, and now you defend the right to congest the court system as long as ONLY homosexuals are doing it. You must be gay. You defend homosexuality every step of the way and denounce polygamy ever step of the way. Ignoring the reasons you defend gay marriage as they are used to defend polygamy, then go back to using those reasons when defending gay marriage. Did you ever look up the word "hypocrite", yet? You seem so confused on it's meaning and usage.
"My wife divorced her previous husband with no judge involved." ... Yeah, sure she did. Who signed or ok'd that decree?
"Your entire premise is deeply flawed." ... No, it's accurate and applicable. Don't project your failures onto me.
Do you have any more reasons to not allow polygamy? It seems EVERY ONE of your other whines about them has been shot down as completely equal to gay marriage.
"You're saying people can't choose to be straight, now?" ... Can I use the title of this article to explain/describe that last statement of yours: What clever sound like to a stupid person.
"NONE of those divorce cases would have happened if gay marriage was not legal."
DeleteBut they would have happened if people "chose" to be straight and got married to someone of the opposite gender. You're repeating your same lame argument without explaining why the "created" divorces are unacceptable, while somehow they would be fine if those people happened to be straight.
"The funny thing is that you just got done whining about how often normal marriages end in divorce and that shouldn't be a reason to exclude gays."
Where did this happen, specifically? You brought up the divorce rate.
"THAT was your last reason to not allow polygamy, and now you defend the right to congest the court system as long as ONLY homosexuals are doing it."
Except straight people get divorced, and you're not explaining the difference between the two scenarios at all.
"You must be gay."
What was that thing you said about attacking people who point out failures, again? "Your only option", or something like that.
"... Yeah, sure she did. Who signed or ok'd that decree?"
You might actually have a point, for once. It was a collaborative divorce, and I don't recall her having to go to court at all for it. Still, a few minutes of perusal is hardly prohibitive, and even the typical uncontested divorces aren't remotely comparable to having multiple spouses suing each other for rights and property.
"... Can I use the title of this article to explain/describe that last statement of yours: What clever sound like to a stupid person."
If you can explain how it wasn't fair, sure. I doubt you can.
"But they would have happened if people "chose" to be straight and got married to someone of the opposite gender." ... That already happens to those people. When you ADD millions of "hypothetical" possible divorces, then there is a CREATION of court cases. That is your big fear about polygamy, remember?!?
Delete"You're repeating your same lame argument without explaining why the "created" divorces are unacceptable, while somehow they would be fine if those people happened to be straight." ... I have not said they are "unacceptable". I'm really surprised you are attributing statements to me that I never made LOL. I have said they will cost the government a fortune in regards to benefits/insurance (or whatever you think the costs go to), in fact the "hypothetical" that you brought, for all of our enjoyment, says you fear most the polygamist having 3,4,5 wives and each of them suing each other for control of his property/finances. You FEAR polygamy because of "hypothetical" costs, but you ACCEPT gay marriage in spite of the 10X "hypothetical" cost predictions using your required standard of equating divorce rates to normal marriages.
"Still, a few minutes of perusal is hardly prohibitive, and even the typical uncontested divorces aren't remotely comparable to having multiple spouses suing each other for rights and property." ... Let me give you another "bigot test". Will EVERY polygamist family end that way? Will only 10%? Or will it be the national average ... 50%? You seem to think every polygamist family will sue each other the moment polygamy becomes legal. Quite bigoted of you the way you think so highly of your fellow man.
Let's do a little math:
100,000 polygamists families. Half file for divorce (50,000), then there are 5 wives per divorce (250,000). That equals 250,000 "hypothetical" court cases CREATED by legal polygamy.
11,000,000 homosexuals. Let's use an assumption that 1/4 of them get married. We have 2,500,000 couples and half file for divorce (1,250,000). Since there are no multipliers (like in polygamy) there are ONLY 1,250,000 court cases CREATED by legal gay marriage.
You fear polygamy because of the "hypothetical" 250,000 court cases CREATED within the US.
You support gay marriage even though 1,250,000 court cases would be CREATED to the court schedules within the US.
"... That already happens to those people. When you ADD millions of "hypothetical" possible divorces, then there is a CREATION of court cases."
DeleteWho are "those people"?
" ... I have not said they are "unacceptable". I'm really surprised you are attributing statements to me that I never made LOL."
I didn't put "unacceptable" in quotes, so I didn't attribute that to you.
"I have said they will cost the government a fortune in regards to benefits/insurance (or whatever you think the costs go to), in fact the "hypothetical" that you brought, for all of our enjoyment, says you fear most the polygamist having 3,4,5 wives and each of them suing each other for control of his property/finances. You FEAR polygamy because of "hypothetical" costs, but you ACCEPT gay marriage in spite of the 10X "hypothetical" cost predictions using your required standard of equating divorce rates to normal marriages."
Why would the benefits/insurance be any different in gay marriage than for straight marriage?
"... Let me give you another "bigot test". Will EVERY polygamist family end that way? Will only 10%? Or will it be the national average ... 50%? You seem to think every polygamist family will sue each other the moment polygamy becomes legal."
DeleteI neither said nor suggested that "EVERY" polygamist family will end that way. If you want to say that describing your argument about "CREATED" court cases as "unacceptable" to you is attribuing something to you, then you're obviously attributing those words to me here. You're also not disputing the argument that five wives in one court case makes that case exponentially more complicated. Even if you claim that there would be five times as many divorces, you're not taking into account the different natures involved. Nor are you addressing other issues besides divorce such as multiple spouses fighting over inheritance or end-of-life-rights, which would not apply to gay marriage.
You want some math? Here's some for you. Let's say we have 300,000,000 adults eligible and willing for marriage, split directly in half along gender lines. 150,000,000 straight marriages. 75,000,000 divorce cases, based on the 50% figure.
Now, let's subtract the gay population, generously at 10%. now you have 67,500,000 divorce cases for straight people. The gay population, at 10%, would be 30,000,000 people. By the same construct as above, that's 15,000,000 marriages and 7,500,000 divorce cases.
67,500,000 (straight marriage divorce)
+7,500,000 (gay marriage divorce)
----------
75,000,000
How about that? The exact same number as there would be if everyone simply got married to someone of the opposite gender. Apparently, nothing is being "CREATED" at all.
Isn't math fun?
"Apparently, nothing is being "CREATED" at all." ... Well, then APPARENTLY there will be nothing "CREATED" by polygamy either. Doofus!!
DeleteBTW, your math is unrealistic and misleading. I've already told you the population of homosexuals in America is 11,000,000. That isn't a made up number (like you use), my number is FACT. Why don't you try arguing using FACTS instead of the mind of a doofus.
"... Well, then APPARENTLY there will be nothing "CREATED" by polygamy either. Doofus!!"
DeleteOf course there would be, because the divorce cases aren't the same, never mind the issues of rights and property disputes. Even if the number of divorces was fewer, having five spouses arguing amongst each other is far more complicated than your average divorce. Tell me how you can believe otherwise.
"I've already told you the population of homosexuals in America is 11,000,000."
Does that change the math, or the point that it illustrates? Why no, it doesn't. I set it out there as an example, not as a "fact", and the higher number highlights the point that it doesn't matter how many divorces you think gay divorce will "create", it's still only in contrast to what would happen if people "chose" to be straight. No matter what that number is, it's always going to equal what there would be if everyone was heterosexual anyway, so you really have nothing to complain about.
Incidentally, words and phrases such as "generously" and "let's say" clearly imply that what follows is not "fact". If you can't figure out that the actual numbers aren't relevant to the demonstration, there's really not much that you can grasp. Try to relax and make a better effort at comprehension.
"Of course there would be, because the divorce cases aren't the same, never mind the issues of rights and property disputes." ... No, you're wrong. There would be NO additional cases. You cannot prove there would be and you cannot say what kind of cases they would be. You know why? Because you keep whining about polygamy being "hypothetical". That means ALL the fears you have of polygamy are simply MADE UP. The fears you have are not based in REALITY. Otherwise you could bring real world examples of your FEAR of polygamy. Which qualifies you as being a bigot.
Delete"Does that change the math, or the point that it illustrates?" ... Both. Because I gave an accurate example of what would happen. You simply made up numbers to please yourself. ALL the future 'gay marriage' divorces would be NEW cases that would never had been heard before legalization of gay marriage. For you to say those cases would have happened anyway is plain dumb. ALL the future gay marriage divorce cases would be NEW cases. How could they POSSIBLY be considered old cases if they would never have happened unless gay marriage was legalized?
The problem with your dumb analogy is that it can be applied to polygamy also and that would be yet ANOTHER example of your hypocrisy on gay marriage/polygamy. If polygamist had CHOSEN to be in normal marriages, then they would have occurred anyway also.
"Try to relax and make a better effort at comprehension." ... AMEN TO THAT, BROTHER!!!!
"There would be NO additional cases."
DeleteHow does that address the difference between the types of cases? You're saying no polygamists will get divorced, now?
"Because you keep whining about polygamy being "hypothetical". That means ALL the fears you have of polygamy are simply MADE UP. The fears you have are not based in REALITY. Otherwise you could bring real world examples of your FEAR of polygamy."
First off, you keep talking about "whining" to the point where that word has no meaning. And what "real world examples" are there supposed to be of something that is currently illegal? The issue requires a hypothetical discussion, because it's not legal. There are no specific people to point to here. Again, you brought it up, not me. You bring up a subject and then kick and scream when the very nature of it denies specific citations.
It's also rather insane for you to claim that a hypothetical discussion isn't valid at all simply because it's hypothetical. I'll ask again; do you think that welfare recipients should be able to write their own checks? That would require a hypothetically-based response, since it's not currently the case, but that doesn't mean you can't look at that situation and come to the conclusion that there will be problems.
"... Both. Because I gave an accurate example of what would happen. You simply made up numbers to please yourself."
The numbers aren't relevant to my point. If you want to prove me wrong, I'd love to see you try.
"How could they POSSIBLY be considered old cases if they would never have happened unless gay marriage was legalized?"
Where did I say or suggest "old cases"? The point is that your idyllic situation is a world of heterosexual unions, which would create the same number of divorces that you're talking about for gay marriage.
"The problem with your dumb analogy is that it can be applied to polygamy also and that would be yet ANOTHER example of your hypocrisy on gay marriage/polygamy."
No, it can't, because the legal matters would be more complicated. I notice you didn't dispute that, but you have no problem repeating it as if whatever you say is true regardless of logic or reason.
"... AMEN TO THAT, BROTHER!!!!"
What's that word you like to use? "Flailing", I think?
"I'll ask again; do you think that welfare recipients should be able to write their own checks?" ... You ask some of the dumbest questions. Of course they can write their own check ... up to the amount they are entitled. That includes a "real world" premise of dollars to be spent.
DeleteThe problem you have with proving your point is you think polygamy ONLY happens in the US. There are plenty of examples of polygamy being legal. Bring some evidence of excessive court usage during the legal periods.
"Of course they can write their own check ... up to the amount they are entitled."
DeleteThat's not writing their own check, that's requesting what's reasonably required. Try again.
"There are plenty of examples of polygamy being legal."
Where, in places like Pakistan where society is male-dominated and the laws are based on Islam? I'm not sure how you think the environments would be comparable, or how places like that are supposed to be good advertising for polygamy at all. You take a look at the list of countries that allow polygamy and tell me who the United States is supposed to be learning something from.
Sorry, I don't need to try again. I gave you an answer, you'll just have to deal with it.
Delete"You take a look at the list of countries that allow polygamy and tell me who the United States is supposed to be learning something from." ... Whoever said the US is supposed to "learn" anything? I'm asking for evidence that will support the claim you make. If you can't bring any, just say so. I've grown accustom to you not bringing evidence to support your claims, why should now be any different?
"I gave you an answer, you'll just have to deal with it."
DeleteYou did give me an answer, that's true. Of course, since it was wholly disingenuous, you effectively support the point I was making. I can deal with that just fine.
"I'm asking for evidence that will support the claim you make."
Why would it be relevant in countries with completely different legal systems? A country that doesn't recognize women's rights and allows polygyny isn't going to entertain many complaints, for instance.
Besides that, they've established rules that I haven't seen you propose here. There's a limit of four wives, for instance, based on the Qu'ran. Since polygamy here would not possibly be based on Islam, where would such a limit come from? And why would it be fair to people who want to take a fifth, sixth, seventh spouse? In Pakistan, which I specified, the first wife has to approve of further marriages. Would that be the rule here, and why, if there's no harm in just letting people do whatever they want? Isn't someone's "rights" violated if their spouse tells them they can't get married again?
And I would say that if there's a country out there that can accommodate a sophisticated, fair legal system while maintaining civil rights and polygamy all at the same time, that's impressive. If it can really be done, then I'm open to the concept. I've just never seen anyone explain how it's supposed to happen, and you're at the very bottom of the barrel out of those who would ever think of trying it.
Feel free to try to surprise me. Otherwise, my objections to the practice stand.
So, Islam is the ONLY other place in the world that allows polygamy? Well, I wasn't talking about religions that allow it. I was talking about countries that allow it. No surprise when you couldn't grasp that simple question.
DeleteI've read that there are over 50 countries that allow polygamy of some type. Why don't you show me where ANY of those countries is having a huge increase in court cases involving polygamist relations. You claim there will be a huge increase in court cases, but you fail to bring any evidence. With over 50 countries (world wide) that allow the practice, there should be plenty of fodder for you to use to prove your irrational fear of a sexual perversion.
DeleteYour choice, you can run away from simple requests for proof of your claims or you can provide that proof. I think you'll choose the prior (run).
"There's a limit of four wives, for instance, based on the Qu'ran (SP)." ... Interesting. Islam and democrats are opposites: one loves homosexuality and the other hates it. Then the other loves polygamy while the one hates it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Why don't you show me where ANY of those countries is having a huge increase in court cases involving polygamist relations."
DeleteWhen you show me how any of them are supposed to be comparable to us.
If you've really done any reading about this subject, you would know that most of the objections are based off of sociological and psychological concerns from days long past. Obviously you didn't know that, or you would have wondered by now why I didn't bring any of that up. Now that you're aware, I'll let you know that it's because I think it's apples-and-oranges. Women are more balanced with men now, we've had the sexual revolution, and children can be raised by single parents and even (avert your delicate eyes) gay couples with little to no problem. There may be some validity to those concerns, but I don't find them compelling, because it's a comparison between two completely different environments in two different time periods.
It's for the same reason that I don't buy into your argument. Completely different cultures and governments with different legal systems. You should probably be grateful for that, otherwise your argument validates a whole new set of complaints, many regarding the well-being of children.
That would be very bad for you, don't you think? A supposedly evil Democrat defending the welfare of children while you throw their concerns to the wind, all for the sake of being a knee-jerk contrarian?
"Islam and democrats are opposites: one loves homosexuality and the other hates it."
Contrary to your binary mindset, one can defend gay rights without loving homosexuality.
"Then the other loves polygamy while the one hates it."
Actually, the reason that the first wife has to approve of subsequent wives in Pakistan is to limit the practice. That's hardly consistent with "love" of polygamy. Maybe other countries are different, but it's still not relevant.
"When you show me how any of them are supposed to be comparable to us." ... Thank you for admitting you cannot prove your claims. Since comparing to the US was NEVER one of the conditions for your unrelenting hate of a sexual deviance and you just admitted that financial concerns were NEVER the issue with polygamy. You have now admitted that your only reason to forbid polygamy is based on hate and ignorance.
Delete"Women are more balanced with men now, we've had the sexual revolution, and children can be raised by single parents and even (avert your delicate eyes) gay couples with little to no problem. " ... Mainly-- "we've had the sexual revolution" translates to " our morals have lowered to accommodate sexual deviances". Thanks for admitting your morals fluctuate along the class curve, also. Something you've denied in the past.
"Contrary to your binary mindset, one can defend gay rights without loving homosexuality." ... How can you do that without being a bigot towards polygamy? Do you use your hypocritical mindset to achieve that?
"you would know that most of the objections are based off of sociological and psychological concerns from days long past." ... Which is why you cannot allow gay marriage. Those "sociological and psychological" concerns are extremely dangerous to the homosexual, but you demand they get marriage rights. Now, you tell ME not to 'live in the past' while you use those very issues to say polygamy should not be allowed in FREE America?
Well, good job, bradantio. You've admitted you are a lying, hateful bigot with morals that change with the wind in just one single post. You've have so completely lost your argument supporting gay marriage while admonishing polygamy that you've now reduced yourself to discussing girls in Pakistan.
I hate to see a democrat go wandering off, after embarrassing themselves so much, that I'll give you one free post that I won't even respond to just so that you can feel better by having the "last word". That should make you "feel" like a winner... since that will be the ONLY way for you to get that feeling on this subject.
"Since comparing to the US was NEVER one of the conditions for your unrelenting hate of a sexual deviance and you just admitted that financial concerns were NEVER the issue with polygamy."
DeleteWhy would that be a "condition"? What you just posted makes no sense at all. You brought up foreign countries, so saying that there's no comparison to those countries makes no comment on my concerns in this country.
"... Mainly-- "we've had the sexual revolution" translates to " our morals have lowered to accommodate sexual deviances". Thanks for admitting your morals fluctuate along the class curve, also."
It translates to no such thing. It's simply stating a fact that is relevant to a difference between time periods. Are you barred from saying there was a sexual revolution, because that would prove your morals fluctuate?
"... How can you do that without being a bigot towards polygamy?"
What would defending gay rights have to do with that? You're quite random today.
"... Which is why you cannot allow gay marriage. Those "sociological and psychological" concerns are extremely dangerous to the homosexual, but you demand they get marriage rights."
If I don't buy into those arguments for polygamy, why would I accept them for gay marriage?
"Now, you tell ME not to 'live in the past' while you use those very issues to say polygamy should not be allowed in FREE America?"
I didn't use "those very issues" to say polygamy should not be allowed. What are you misreading to come to that conclusion?
"You've have so completely lost your argument supporting gay marriage while admonishing polygamy that you've now reduced yourself to discussing girls in Pakistan."
You brought up foreign countries, not me.
"I hate to see a democrat go wandering off, after embarrassing themselves so much, that I'll give you one free post that I won't even respond to just so that you can feel better by having the "last word"."
That's your last post, filled with illogical conclusions and no effort to explain them? Sounds typical. Run away, now, having failed in your extended effort to make yourself feel better about being a bigot.
"You brought up foreign countries, not me." ... Yeah, I brought up countries. You changed it to religions.
Delete"That's your last post, filled with illogical conclusions and no effort to explain them?" ... When did that ever happen?
"Are you barred from saying there was a sexual revolution, because that would prove your morals fluctuate?" ... Of course you're not "barred" from saying it, but if you believe it then yeah. What do you think it means?
"... Yeah, I brought up countries. You changed it to religions."
DeleteAnd somehow the phrase "girls in Pakistan" implied religion. And you want to claim, now that predominant religion, especially when it manifests itself in law, isn't relevant to differences between two separate legal systems? Good luck.
"... When did that ever happen?"
I explained how your comments made no sense. You're not demonstrating how they did, so obviously you're substantiating the comment.
"... Of course you're not "barred" from saying it, but if you believe it then yeah. What do you think it means?"
Let's try this again. All I did was point out that there was a sexual revolution in the United States. You used that to claim something about lowered morals and specifically that my own morals "fluctuate". You aren't aware of the sexual revolution? You've never heard of this before, or what? Since when is this some belief that prompts judgment as opposed to a historical fact?
Try using google. It may help.
"And you want to claim, now that predominant religion, especially when it manifests itself in law, isn't relevant to differences between two separate legal systems?" ... No, and you know it. Since we are talking about "hypothetical" court cases, you must prove that court cases would even occur before you can use it as a reason to forbid a different sexual deviance than the one you prefer to allow. Trying some asinine attempt to change the subject won't work. You MUST answer that question before you can claim that "hypothetical".
Delete"Since we are talking about "hypothetical" court cases, you must prove that court cases would even occur before you can use it as a reason to forbid a different sexual deviance than the one you prefer to allow."
DeleteThe nature of the legal system you're trying to point to as a comparison makes a difference in whether or not court cases would occur there.
Why is "hypothetical" in quotations? As if it's not really a hypothetical? And do you realize you're insisting that a hypothetical has to be proven in order to advance it as a hypothetical? Seriously, read your post again, and let me know what the hell you thought you were talking about.
"The nature of the legal system you're trying to point to as a comparison makes a difference in whether or not court cases would occur there." ... I am not comparing any legal system to ours. You, however, must show that court cases even occur during legal polygamy. If you can't then your "hypothetical" isn't realistic and you continue to show yourself as a bigot toward sexual deviances.
Delete"Why is "hypothetical" in quotations?" ... Your inability to comprehend the English language is astounding.
" ... I am not comparing any legal system to ours. You, however, must show that court cases even occur during legal polygamy."
DeleteI just love those two sentences together. I have to show, according to you, that court cases occur in countries with legal polygamy, and at the same time, you're "not comparing" those systems to ours. If they're not comparable, then they have no relevance.
"... Your inability to comprehend the English language is astounding."
Your inability to answer questions tells me that even you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
" I have to show, according to you, that court cases occur in countries with legal polygamy, and at the same time, you're "not comparing" those systems to ours." ... That's right. I'm not comparing any other laws to ours. I am requesting you prove your contention that once polygamy is legal then a high number of court cases develop from that. So, where's the high number of court cases you predict will happen if polygamy is legalized?
Delete"Your inability to answer questions tells me that even you don't know what the hell you're talking about." .. Simple answer for the doofus who can't read: YOU are QUOTED saying that there is a "hypothetical" possibility of court cases resulting from legal polygamy. But, you can't prove or even establish that as a viable concern. I say it is simply a fear you have of a sexual perversion and you create infeasible reasons in you mind to justify that position.
Delete"I'm not comparing any other laws to ours."
DeleteLaws? Who said "laws"? Obviously polygamy is illegal here, so there's no comparison to laws, the phrase was "legal system". And again:"If they're not comparable, then they have no relevance."
".. Simple answer for the doofus who can't read: YOU are QUOTED saying that there is a "hypothetical" possibility of court cases resulting from legal polygamy. But, you can't prove or even establish that as a viable concern."
What does that have to do with you putting "hypothetical" in quotation marks? The entire concept of polygamy in the United States is hypothetical, so any concerns regarding it have to be hypothetical as well.
"I say it is simply a fear you have of a sexual perversion and you create infeasible reasons in you mind to justify that position."
It can't be a fear of a "sexual perversion" because I have no problem with polyamory. You seem to forget this frequently, for some reason.
"It can't be a fear of a "sexual perversion" because I have no problem with polyamory(SP)." ... I have the same feelings about homosexuality, but I keep getting called a bigot for my religious beliefs. I guess my use of bigot towards your attitude on sexual perversions is quite accurate.
Delete"... I have the same feelings about homosexuality, but I keep getting called a bigot for my religious beliefs."
DeleteIt's truly hard to accept that your view of homosexuality as a "sin" from your Biblical views and "harmful" based off of the "research" of the FRC, which is listed as a hate group because they tell so many lies about homosexuals (whether regarding marriage or not) qualifies as "no problem" with homosexuality.
I'm making a legal argument against polygamy. Your argument against gay marriage is based on your morality. Sorry, yet another of your false equivalencies falls flat. Anything else?
Incidentally, "polyamory" is the correct spelling, and you should use "[sic]", not "(SP)" to note it when you're quoting someone else. Otherwise it appears that I put "(SP)" there as if I wasn't sure how it was spelled. Surely, that wasn't your intent, so I expect you'll appreciate the correction.
DeleteWow, I spelled 'spelled incorrectly' wrong. Good catch. That's about the only thing you get.
Delete"I'm making a legal argument against polygamy." ... But you haven't been able to substantiate any of it other than through your imagination. Which is different than my morals in what way?
"... But you haven't been able to substantiate any of it other than through your imagination. Which is different than my morals in what way?"
DeleteYour mere assertion that there would be no legal problems is no reflection on my reasoning. It's also absurd for you to cite "imagination" when the entire topic...which you introduced...relies on hypothetical scenarios.
Also, look up the words "objective" and "subjective". Your argument is the latter. Mine is the former, whether you accept it or pigheadedly refuse to out of a desperate attempt to label me a bigot. There's a fairly major difference there.
"whether you accept it or pigheadedly refuse to out of a desperate attempt to label me a bigot." ... You DO know the first step to recovery is admitting your problem. If you continue to live in denial there isn't much of a chance for you to recover from your bigotry. That must be why democrats don't go to alcohol/drug dependency recovery classes ... they never can admit when they are wrong.
Delete"It's also absurd for you to cite "imagination" when the entire topic...which you introduced...relies on hypothetical scenarios." ... Hey doofus, my feelings about homosexuality are based ENTIRELY on "hypothetical" scenarios. Are you stupid or just act that way? (maybe your picture should be headlining this article instead of the one Eddie used). You have NOTHING to base your argument on, The ONLY thing you are using is made up possibilities that you fear will happen, but have NO evidence to support that unfounded fear. You don't even have anything that can show that it MIGHT happen. The ONLY thing you have is your imagination that it will happen. And simply continuing to state your opinion does NOT make it fact. If you can't find even the smallest amount of evidence to support your "hypothetical" (notice I put it in quotations again?) then there is NO proof that it would or could happen. And, if there's no possibility that it will happen then your fear that it will happen is based purely on your bigoted fear of an alternative lifestyle. Live in denial if you want, but the fact is that if you can't substantiate your unfounded fear, then you are a bigot.
"... You DO know the first step to recovery is admitting your problem."
DeleteIs there a point here, or did you think you hadn't made your idiotic assertion enough?
"... Hey doofus, my feelings about homosexuality are based ENTIRELY on "hypothetical" scenarios."
They are? It's "hypothetical" that it's a "sin" and a "sexual perversion"? I'm curious how you think that works.
"You don't even have anything that can show that it MIGHT happen. The ONLY thing you have is your imagination that it will happen."
You can deny human nature until the mountains crumble, but you're going to look like an idiot the entire time.
"And simply continuing to state your opinion does NOT make it fact."
I never claimed my concerns were "fact". The fact that you keep talking in these terms makes it all the more hilarious that you brought up a situation that relies on hypotheticals.
"If you can't find even the smallest amount of evidence to support your "hypothetical" (notice I put it in quotations again?) then there is NO proof that it would or could happen."
And yet, your counterargument relies on avoiding questions regarding how far your trust of people goes. I never claimed "proof", but your behavior confirms the obvious nature of my concerns. Otherwise, you would be able to defend your Pollyanna views, now wouldn't you?
"And, if there's no possibility that it will happen then your fear that it will happen is based purely on your bigoted fear of an alternative lifestyle."
If there's "no possibility"? That was quite the logical leap there.
"Live in denial if you want, but the fact is that if you can't substantiate your unfounded fear, then you are a bigot."
Didn't you say your views on homosexuality were based on hypotheticals? So, how do you substantiate them?
"I never claimed "proof", but your behavior confirms the obvious nature of my concerns." ... Now, you're claiming that I am scamming the government? But, of course, you never claimed proof. There isn't any. All you have is your imagination. Even your faux "human nature" claim doesn't work, otherwise, all those people you fear would scam the system MUST be doing it NOW, or human nature wouldn't be as untrustworthy as you claim. So, there would be NO NEW CASES involving legalized polygamy.
Delete"If there's "no possibility"? That was quite the logical leap there." ... Yes, quite a leap from "your imagination" to "not possible". Do you have ANY evidence to support YOUR claim? I'll bet I can find tons of evidence to support my claim. AND, I'll bet you demand I produce it. Since YOU cannot produce evidence of your claims.
" So, how do you substantiate them?" ... I substantiate them through my religion. You would probably call religion a "hypothetical" since there is no proof (like YOUR hypotheticals).
"... Now, you're claiming that I am scamming the government?"
DeleteWere we talking about youdoing anything? I'd love to see you explain where you got that from.
"Even your faux "human nature" claim doesn't work, otherwise, all those people you fear would scam the system MUST be doing it NOW, or human nature wouldn't be as untrustworthy as you claim."
People do scam the government now. Are you really arguing otherwise?
"... Yes, quite a leap from "your imagination" to "not possible"."
Yes, it was, because possibilities are still possible. We're not talking about time travel here. If you give multiple people rights that were previously designated for one, then those people can litigate over it. You haven't shown how that's not possible.
"Do you have ANY evidence to support YOUR claim?"
Have you looked up "hypothetical" yet?
"... I substantiate them through my religion."
Faith is not substantiation. Your argument is circular. You also didn't explain how your views of homosexuality as a "sin" qualify as "hypothetical".
"If you give multiple people rights that were previously designated for one, then those people can litigate over it. You haven't shown how that's not possible." .. I never said it wasn't possible. I think it isn't likely, but I never said impossible.
DeleteYou earlier (emphasis mine):"And, if there's no possibility that it will happen then your fear that it will happen is based purely on your bigoted fear of an alternative lifestyle."
DeleteYou, now:" .. I never said it wasn't possible."
Are you going to get into semantics regarding the difference between "not possible" and "no possibility"? I'm sure you've made a comment about how that's a good way to admit defeat, or something to that effect.
"Are you going to get into semantics regarding the difference between "not possible" and "no possibility"?" ... Hey doofus, you whined to me (once) when you used the word "IF" to start your statement. Did you notice the word "IF" that was used JUST BEFORE "there's no possibility"?
DeleteOk, so is that all you got? Thanks for giving up so easily. If you decide to play again, please ... please be willing to bring proof for you claims. Any kind of real evidence would be nice. Try to steer clear of your imagination when expressing your bigoted judgements. Have a nice day and see you in the next article that you want to get embarrassed during.
" ... Hey doofus, you whined to me (once) when you used the word "IF" to start your statement. Did you notice the word "IF" that was used JUST BEFORE "there's no possibility"?"
DeleteYou really don't understand the language, obviously. I didn't use "if" as part of a logical process, meaning it was a conclusion. For instance, if I had brought some sort of rationale for the "%3000" figure, and then said "if" that happened, that would be comparable.
Meanwhile, here's what you said:"The ONLY thing you have is your imagination that it will happen. And simply continuing to state your opinion does NOT make it fact. If you can't find even the smallest amount of evidence to support your "hypothetical" (notice I put it in quotations again?) then there is NO proof that it would or could happen. And, if there's no possibility that it will happen then your fear that it will happen is based purely on your bigoted fear of an alternative lifestyle."
You're stacking conclusions there. One thing leads to another. You assert that it's opinion, therefore not fact, so if I have no evidence (which you've claimed many times), then there's no proof (which you've said many times), therefore if there's no possibility that it will happen. You relied on things you've already claimed, so it's a conclusion, not a hypothetical. My point was that my usage clearly indicated a hypothetical, not that any possible usage means the same. You're welcome.
"Ok, so is that all you got? Thanks for giving up so easily."
I responded to what you posted. It's not clear what more you were expecting.
"Try to steer clear of your imagination when expressing your bigoted judgements."
Try not to introduce a hypothetical situation and then ask for proof. It's not much to ask, really.
"You're stacking conclusions there." ... That's right. It's called a "hypothetical". They usually start with an "IF" and draw conclusions from that "IF". Similar to your "hypothetical": "IF" polygamy is legalized, so many lawsuits will be filed that the US will not be able to remain financially sound. I'm glad you asked someone how "hypotheticals" work. I was beginning to wonder if you even knew anyone that could help you out there. I guess being a democrat, your pool of intelligence is limited ;)
Delete"Try not to introduce a hypothetical situation and then ask for proof. It's not much to ask, really." ... Here's another one for you: try not to introduce a hypothetical situation without any evidence to support the possibility. Makes your theories look kind of delusional.
"... That's right. It's called a "hypothetical"."
DeleteSorry, no. The entire thrust of your argument has been to label me a bigot, so at this point you're not able to brush off your conclusions as a "hypothetical". It hasn't been "if you're a bigot", it's been "bigot...bigot..bigot". You were explaining your reasoning for your ultimate conclusion, not posing a hypothetical.
"Similar to your "hypothetical": "IF" polygamy is legalized, so many lawsuits will be filed that the US will not be able to remain financially sound."
Strawman argument. I never said nor suggested anything about the financial stability of the entire country.
"Here's another one for you: try not to introduce a hypothetical situation without any evidence to support the possibility."
Still, at this point, waiting for you to explain what kind of evidence there could possibly be. It doesn't seem likely that you'll ever be able to justify your demands, though.
"Still, at this point, waiting for you to explain what kind of evidence there could possibly be." ... Done that. You refused to comply.
Delete"Strawman argument. I never said nor suggested anything about the financial stability of the entire country." ... Sure is something close the way you describe polygamists running out in droves just to scam the system. You have an unreasonable and un-natural fear of polygamy based on a financial possibility that you created in your mind. And you use that fear to oppose legalization of marriage rights for one alternative lifestyle while ignoring the real and current presence of excessive scamming the system by another alternative lifestyle.
"... Done that. You refused to comply."
DeleteNo, you refused to explain how your request made any sense.
"... Sure is something close the way you describe polygamists running out in droves just to scam the system."
Sounds like an admission that I didn't say it, though. The whole point is that there's no way to quantify those results, since there would be no way to rein in the benefit claims. And your explanation as to why people wouldn't suddenly pretend to be aspiring polyamorists as soon as there's a profit involved is...? You don't have one. You just say it will be negligible, because anything else is inconvenient for you.
"And you use that fear to oppose legalization of marriage rights for one alternative lifestyle while ignoring the real and current presence of excessive scamming the system by another alternative lifestyle."
What "scamming" is going on with gay marriage that isn't occurring with straight marriage already? Again, your knee-jerk responses don't serve you well.
"No, you refused to explain how your request made any sense." ... Your requests make no sense, when did that become a parameter within this discussion? You keep adding dimensions to the discussion that have never been part of it. Why do you do that?
Delete"The whole point is that there's no way to quantify those results, since there would be no way to rein in the benefit claims." ... NO, the point is that you are making claims that you cannot provide evidence for to support your irrational fear.
"What "scamming" is going on with gay marriage that isn't occurring with straight marriage already?" ... Are you kidding me? I've already brought several links that show how gay marriage is STILL clogging the court system (all the way to the supreme court). If using valuable court time isn't considered 'scamming the system' then you have no complaint left to oppose polygamy other than your irrational bigoted fears of an alternative lifestyle. I don't see ANY normal marriage cases going to the supreme court, do you? There is the difference. A difference you don't care about during your bigoted rants supporting gay marriage but opposing polygamist marriages.
"The whole point is that there's no way to quantify those results, since there would be no way to rein in the benefit claims. " ... And another thing .. WHAT benefits will need to be reigned in? You are saying that those people WILL (without quantification) scam the system. You seem to have a dark vision of human nature. Many of us religious type folk, seem to think human nature is more honest than you think it is. You think there will be so many scammers that they will need to be "reigned in". Um, how do you come to that conclusion? Do you have any data or history to support that? OR are you just making up shit to support your baseless claims?
Delete"... Your requests make no sense, when did that become a parameter within this discussion?"
DeleteIn other words, you don't deny it, but instead make another baseless claim. Good job.
"... NO, the point is that you are making claims that you cannot provide evidence for to support your irrational fear."
You haven't explained what evidence there could be for a hypothetical.
"... Are you kidding me? I've already brought several links that show how gay marriage is STILL clogging the court system (all the way to the supreme court)."
Here's what you said:"... Sure is something close the way you describe polygamists running out in droves just to scam the system." What does that have to do with the fight for gay rights?
"If using valuable court time isn't considered 'scamming the system' then you have no complaint left to oppose polygamy other than your irrational bigoted fears of an alternative lifestyle."
What's the "scam" to using court time?
"I don't see ANY normal marriage cases going to the supreme court, do you?"
Because that's already legal. So, was the fight for interracial marriage a "scam" because it took up court time? Tread lightly.
" ... And another thing .. WHAT benefits will need to be reigned in?"
Why do you need to be reminded of this? Any government benefits that are distributed to spouses.
"You are saying that those people WILL (without quantification) scam the system."
Undeniably, many will. Do you really want me to guess at a number? Otherwise, I'm not sure why you note "without quantification".
"You seem to have a dark vision of human nature. Many of us religious type folk, seem to think human nature is more honest than you think it is."
Your Pollyanna views have nothing to do with religion. Anyone who thinks loopholes won't be exploited is delusional.
"You think there will be so many scammers that they will need to be "reigned in"."
Where did you get that from? I said it wasn't quantifiable because there was no way to rein them in. You quoted it yourself.
" So, was the fight for interracial marriage a "scam" because it took up court time? Tread lightly." ... I'm not going to tread, at all, in your attempt to compare homosexuality to race relations. There is no comparison. Unless you want to compare apples to oranges. Is that the way you do it?
Delete"Why do you need to be reminded of this? Any government benefits that are distributed to spouses." ... Ahh, so there is an expense to your "hypothetical"? Well, bring that expense and let's have an honest discussion concerning your fears of another alternative lifestyle. What are those expenses? How much will they add up to be? Will the 'ends' justify the 'means'? Bring some evidence so everyone else (not you) can make a reasonable judgment as to whether your claim is viable or not.
"Undeniably, many will." ... How many? Yes, venture a guess. That should put you back into 'honest discussion' territory, anyway. That way we can figure expected "human nature" scam artists for the entire population of polygamists and get an actual figure for how much money those people will cost us. In your idea of "human nature", what will be the percentage of those who will scam compared to those who will not (overall, not just polygamy)?
"I'm not going to tread, at all, in your attempt to compare homosexuality to race relations. There is no comparison."
DeleteAs far as people fighting for rights is concerned, what's the difference? Here's your opportunity to explain the "scam". How would it be a "scam" for gay people to fight for rights, but not someone else?
"Well, bring that expense and let's have an honest discussion concerning your fears of another alternative lifestyle."
First off, there's no purpose to guessing at a number. You can't disprove it or do anything other than assert that it's unrealistic and therefore "proof" that I'm a bigot. There's no "honest discussion" to come from that, and I defy you to explain how you thought otherwise. Secondly, I'll say again:"The whole point is that there's no way to quantify those results, since there would be no way to rein in the benefit claims."
"... How many? Yes, venture a guess."
Again, it's not quantifiable, and it doesn't matter. I'll take a guess when you answer this in an honest and sufficient manner:Why do I need to have specific numbers at hand regarding an obvious hypothetical opportunity for people to achieve disproportionate personal gain at the expense of others? This attempt to get me to pinpoint my idea of how many people are dishonest is a distraction, especially funny from someone who whines about "changing the subject" so often. I'll also point out that you went from suggesting that people are pure of heart to trying to figure out exactly how many people are not. If you're trying to get a number, then you're admitting that people will scam the system, and the inability to gauge or contain that behavior is a strong reason not to allow it.
So, either your request for a number is relevant or it isn't. If it isn't, then you're playing games. If it is, then you admit that people aren't as pure as you previously claimed to believe. I eagerly await your decision.
"How would it be a "scam" for gay people to fight for rights, but not someone else?" ... Because they made the CHOICE to be homosexual. How would it be a "scam" for polygamists to fight for rights?
Delete"Why do I need to have specific numbers at hand regarding an obvious hypothetical opportunity for people to achieve disproportionate personal gain at the expense of others?" ... Because, doofus, that is what it means to create a hypothesis. ( 2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences ). You are now claiming they will seek "disproportionate personal gain" whenever given the opportunity. What is "disproportionate" about their right to marry? Since you admit that gays will scam the system too, how is it you are in favor of gay marriage rights but not polygamy marriage rights? That seems kind of hypocritical. And since you have no faith in "human nature" that means that homosexuals are scamming the system in a "disproportionate" way, also. Unless you feel that "human nature" only occurs in SOME people and not all. Do you realize how stupid your arguments are?
"I'll take a guess when you answer this in an honest and sufficient manner:" ... Now, take that guess. Unless the actual meaning of the words you use have no importance in your bigoted stances. If you actually answer, then you can remove the bigot stigma, since you will be giving a viable reason to oppose polygamy. If not, then all you STILL have is an irrational and unexplainable fear of a chosen lifestyle.
So, are you going to continue being a bigot towards a sexual choice? Or, bring evidence to support your hatred of that sexual choice. I eagerly await your CHOICE.
My feelings are that you will continue to be a bigot and NOT bring any evidence to support your made-up reason to oppose polygamy. I wonder if I'm right or not. Let's find out in your next post.
"The whole point is that there's no way to quantify those results, since there would be no way to rein in the benefit claims." ... That is exactly right. There is NO WAY TO QUANTIFY THOSE RESULTS. Since you made all this shit up, there is no way you can say that polygamists will scam the system at all or in "disproportionate" amounts. And since you ONLY use your imagination to create that fear you hold of polygamy, then you are still (and seemingly proudly) a bigot towards a group of people who have made a sexual choice you don't approve of. Now should you venture a guess and actually finish your hypothetical situation, then we can have an honest discussion. But, if you just steer around the request, then you have no interest in honest discussion. Again ... YOUR CHOICE.
"... Because they made the CHOICE to be homosexual. How would it be a "scam" for polygamists to fight for rights?"
DeleteEven if that were true, and it happened to be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, what's the "scam"? If they can "choose" to be straight, what benefit is there to gay marriage?
"... Because, doofus, that is what it means to create a hypothesis."
There's nothing in your definition that suggests a need for specific numbers.
"What is "disproportionate" about their right to marry?"
The phrase "personal gain" refers to money. If I can get benefits multiplied by marrying multiple women, I get more money. See how that works?
"Since you admit that gays will scam the system too, how is it you are in favor of gay marriage rights but not polygamy marriage rights?"
How is the "scam" for homosexuals different than any "scam" by heterosexuals? You still haven't made any sense out of your claim.
"And since you have no faith in "human nature" that means that homosexuals are scamming the system in a "disproportionate" way, also."
No, because gay marriage works the same as straight marriage. There are no extra benefits to it, so there's nothing disproportionate about it.
"... Now, take that guess."
Nothing you said explains why specific numbers are needed.
"... That is exactly right. There is NO WAY TO QUANTIFY THOSE RESULTS. Since you made all this shit up, there is no way you can say that polygamists will scam the system at all or in "disproportionate" amounts."
What the hell did I supposedly make up? You can't possibly argue that people won't take advantage of an opportunity for personal gain (that "gain" being the context of "disproportionate", as you keep applying it to other concepts).
"Now should you venture a guess and actually finish your hypothetical situation, then we can have an honest discussion."
Now, you just said, in this very same paragraph, that there's no way to quantify the amount of scamming. But I still have to quantify it, supposedly, in order to have an "honest discussion". Would you like to explain how that works, or should I just figure that your brain can't keep track of itself from one minute to the next?
"There are no extra benefits to it, so there's nothing disproportionate about it." ... There are no "extra benefits" for polygamists either. Why are you opposed to them getting marriage rights?
Delete"If I can get benefits multiplied by marrying multiple women, I get more money. " ... How? Explain HOW you get multiplied benefits.
"You can't possibly argue that people won't take advantage of an opportunity for personal gain." ... You are saying that only ONE group of people will scam the system. Yet, you use "human nature" as the reason for them scamming the system. Then you deny that other people are not inherent to "human nature" ? Just how do you explain your contention that polygamists will be the only ones who scam the system with marriage rights? Are you saying that no other group of people scam the system through marriage? That's going to be pretty tough to justify that position, if that's what you are saying.
"But I still have to quantify it, supposedly, in order to have an "honest discussion"." ... That is right. Are you going to quantify the fear you have of polygamy? Or continue to use your imagination to create possibilities that aren't realistic?
In the end, I didn't think you had it in you to discuss honestly. Good luck with that attitude. And to think you claim your morals don't change from day to day. I guess immorality stays immorality all the time. When you get morals then you must account for your own actions. When you get some, please feel free to re-join the conversation.
"... There are no "extra benefits" for polygamists either."
DeleteFirst off, what do you mean "either"? You had just said that there's some sort of "scam" to gay marriage, but you admit that there's no extra benefits. And yes, if I marry five women, I would get more money from government benefits. Why does this need to be explained, when you accepted it before? You're ex-military, but you don't know what BAH and BAS are? Health benefits? You don't have any knowledge of DEERS at all?
"You are saying that only ONE group of people will scam the system."
No, I'm saying legal polygamy will create an opportunity for people to scam the system.
"Then you deny that other people are not inherent to "human nature" ?"
No, unless you want to demonstrate where I did so.
"Are you saying that no other group of people scam the system through marriage?"
No, I'm saying that there's no difference in that regard between gay and straight marriage. You have yet to explain otherwise.
"... That is right."
While you said it couldn't be quantified. And you can't explain how that makes any sort of sense whatsoever, of course.
"When you get some, please feel free to re-join the conversation."
When you apologize for lying about me, simply based on your rationale that you can say whatever you want as long as you claim I do the same, then you can talk about morals. Until then, you have demonstrated yourself to be nothing better than all that you rail against Democrats for.
"If I can get benefits multiplied by marrying multiple women, I get more money. " ... How? Explain HOW you get multiplied benefits.
DeleteLet me add on to this. Since you have said that there is no way to calculate how much they would be able to scam the system, how can you claim they WILL scam the system? What will they be scamming? How much will it cost? How many will actually do the scamming? Are they the ONLY ones who will scam the system? Will you deny marriage rights to everyone who scams the system? Or only ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE?
Since you can't (and won't) bring any kind of explanation, you are simply using your inbred fear of another lifestyle to oppose it. Perhaps you aren't from NY, you must be from the heart of Kentucky or Alabama with your bigoted inbred fears you have of an alternative lifestyle.
"Since you have said that there is no way to calculate how much they would be able to scam the system, how can you claim they WILL scam the system?"
DeleteBecause people will take advantage of opportunities for free money. That has nothing to do with having some set figure regarding precisely how many people will do so.
"And yes, if I marry five women, I would get more money from government benefits." ... Not unless you can show how. Can you do that? Just saying so doesn't make it real. Bring some proof of your claim that 5 women will scam the system if they are allowed to marry one man.
Delete"You're ex-military, but you don't know what BAH and BAS are?" ... Oh, so you're saying that ONLY military polygamists will scam the system? Ok, how MUCH will that cost? Explain your irrational fear.
"No, I'm saying that there's no difference in that regard between gay and straight marriage." ... Exactly. Since gay and straight people will scam the system through marriage, why have you supported those marriage rights and not others? And, since you are now admitting that polygamists will scam the system with "no difference" than straight or gay marriages, why do you oppose one and not the others?
"When you apologize for lying about me ... then you can talk about morals." ... I'm not interested in talking to you about morals. You need to have some before you can talk about them. I do not need to apologize for lies you make. Your morals say you can deny one group of sexual deviants the right to marriage based ONLY on your fear of monetary cost. Then you fully support another group of sexual deviants in spite of the extra-ordinary monetary cost they have run up in every state in the nation and the federal court system. That's your hypocritical morals at work for everyone to see.
"Until then, you have demonstrated yourself to be nothing better than all that you rail against Democrats for." ... Did I ever make that claim?
"Because people will take advantage of opportunities for free money." ... Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You now admit that gays, straights and polygamists will scam the system whenever they get the chance through marriage rights. You fully support those rights for 2 of the 3 groups of people. Why do you support marriage rights for people who WILL scam the system through those rights? After all, YOU are the one who says that "human nature" causes people to scam the system. And, that would include gays and straights. Why do you support those marriage rights if they are scamming the system?
DeleteHey, if any of these questions get too hard for you to answer feel free to try to change the subject again.
Delete"... Not unless you can show how."
DeleteBecause I get benefits for being married. It's not even something that you apply for, specifically, it's automatically bestowed.
"... Oh, so you're saying that ONLY military polygamists will scam the system?"
You really should try to break yourself of this happen of making wild, illogical extrapolations. You asked how I would get multiplied benefits, and I answered you. Was there any way I could have done that without magically asserting that "only" military polygamists would do anything?
"Exactly. Since gay and straight people will scam the system through marriage, why have you supported those marriage rights and not others?"
So you have a major issue with all marriage, now. Got it. I personally, don't. It serves a valid legal purpose. Meanwhile, I don't support it for polygamy because it changes the dynamic that exist for straight and gay marriage, namely (and it's sad I have to specify this to you) because it designates rights and benefits intended for one spouse to any number of spouses.
"And, since you are now admitting that polygamists will scam the system with "no difference" than straight or gay marriages, why do you oppose one and not the others?"
I didn't say that. I mentioned a lack of difference between gay and straight marriage. Read it again.
"... I'm not interested in talking to you about morals."
Then why do you bring them up so often?
"Then you fully support another group of sexual deviants in spite of the extra-ordinary monetary cost they have run up in every state in the nation and the federal court system."
I would have supported that for interracial marriage as well. Once gay marriage is legal, you won't have any further issue with that.
"... Did I ever make that claim?"
Then you admit to being a hypocrite, because you rail against others for what you do yourself.
"You now admit that gays, straights and polygamists will scam the system whenever they get the chance through marriage rights."
As opposed to when? I'd love for you to show where I said certain groups of people are pure of heart. That sounds much more like your side of the argument.
"Why do you support marriage rights for people who WILL scam the system through those rights?"
You're not establishing any sort of limitation for polygamy. Have you grasped that at all? I also don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are flaws in any system. You can't argue against Medicare, for instance, simply based on a few people committing fraud on it. The same goes for marriage. Now, if I was single, I could get married in order to provide someone benefits. However, I would not be able to be seen with any other woman, or I would risk UCMJ action. See how that works? Someone can enter a marriage of convenience to get someone into the country, but then that person is going to be tracked by the government and can't marry anyone else until enough time has passed to get a plausible divorce.
It's not the same for polygamy, obviously, since you can marry more than one person. Unless you have very strict limitations in mind, and then the question turns back to how that counts as "equality" and what the purpose would even be at that point, then you're allowing for unleashed abuse of this so-called "right". So, in short, there is a difference between the naturally limited problems with marriage between two consenting adults, and the unchecked abuse that would be possible with polygamy.
"Hey, if any of these questions get too hard for you to answer feel free to try to change the subject again."
Hey, how about that "God particle"?
"You're not establishing any sort of limitation for polygamy. Have you grasped that at all? " ... What do I need to grasp? There is no need to limit polygamy. Gays will scam the system, are you saying we should "limit" them too? Millions of new court cases BECAUSE of legal gay marriage. And you are worried about 50 women trying to scam the system through polygamy. So, while you SAY you can't make arguments against marriage rights based on just a "few people committing fraud" YOU certainly ARE doing just that.
Delete"I also don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater." ... I've seen examples of your morals. I think you are in complete and full support of abortion. So, you absolutely WOULD throw the baby out with the bathwater. Democrats are lying scum for that opinion.
"Hey, how about that "God particle"?" ... There is no "God particle". Why would you change the subject to that? Oh, wait, after reading your answers, I guess those question WERE too hard for you and you are trying to change the subject again. Good one.
"namely (and it's sad I have to specify this to you) because it designates rights and benefits intended for one spouse to any number of spouses." ... What benefits go to the children of any given family? Do THEY get military benefits because they were born into that family (or do they apply for them)?
DeleteYou are worried about 5 wives scamming the system (although you're not worried about millions of gays scamming the system). When these marriages (that you approve of) produce 20 children and each of them are eligible for government benefits, do you consider that scamming too? Are you going to use your pro-abortion beliefs to limit the number of children families can have so you won't have anyone excessively scamming the system? Remember "Octomom"? She scammed the system and didn't even have to get married, just by having children. Is that the NEXT way you plan on LIMITING the rights that people have?
You are a bigot for opposing marriage rights to a sexual perversion based on the reasons you give. Look up the definition of bigot. Then you live in denial because you won't admit you are fallible too. Don't worry, you're not alone. MOST democrats act the same as you.
"Gays will scam the system, are you saying we should "limit" them too?"
DeleteWhat about straight people? In your previous post, it seemed to be equivalent, now you're singling out gay people. I notice that you don't address what I said about how "two consenting adults" is already limited, while polygamy is not.
"Millions of new court cases BECAUSE of legal gay marriage."
Which would be there if they entered straight marriages anyway. So why are you establishing a cutoff point as to how many people can get divorced, when you surely want people to choose heterosexual marriage?
"So, while you SAY you can't make arguments against marriage rights based on just a "few people committing fraud" YOU certainly ARE doing just that."
Where did you come up with "50 women", though? And why would that number remain constant when people have the opportunity to get benefits from the government?
" ... I've seen examples of your morals. I think you are in complete and full support of abortion."
First off, that has nothing to do with a "baby", since a "baby" has come to term. Secondly, as most people know, "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" is an expression. Google it. I would think you actually know that, but that would mean you're trying to change the subject, and we know you would never do that .
"... There is no "God particle". Why would you change the subject to that?"
I'm mocking you for bringing it up, a propos of nothing at all, on another thread. It's pointing out your hypocrisy when talking about "changing the subject".
"... What benefits go to the children of any given family?"
Where did "children" come into this?
"You are worried about 5 wives scamming the system (although you're not worried about millions of gays scamming the system)."
It's still not clear what "scamming" you're talking about. Fighting for rights is not a "scam". Divorce is not a "scam".
"When these marriages (that you approve of) produce 20 children and each of them are eligible for government benefits, do you consider that scamming too?"
No. Again, children weren't being discussed.
"Are you going to use your pro-abortion beliefs to limit the number of children families can have so you won't have anyone excessively scamming the system?"
Nobody has "pro-abortion beliefs". As to your insane question, no.
"Look up the definition of bigot. Then you live in denial because you won't admit you are fallible too."
I'm familiar with the definition of bigot. If that's what you're referring to regarding "fallible", I won't admit that because I don't fit the definition. Again, I have no problem with polyamory. It just shouldn't be legally sanctioned. Remember, you can't say the same thing about homosexuality, because you think it's a "sin". Just to cut that knee-jerk response of yours off at the pass.
"What about straight people?" ... Exactly. According to your fear of polygamy, you should fear legally sanctioned marriages of any type. Since the percentage of people who will scam will be constant from one group to the other. Why aren't you opposed to any type legally sanctioned marriage, since they all scam the government through marriage?
Delete"Which would be there if they entered straight marriages anyway." ... Yes, but they would be "new" cases, since they did not have that option before legal gay marriage. You can't go on an assumption that gays will marry 'straight' in order to get benefits. That would be simply crazy. The whole purpose of seeking gay marriage rights are so they can marry. Those cases would be NEW cases. All of them. Millions (hypothetically). Where-in polygamy you would get a couple hundred, maybe. Compared to millions. And you fear polygamy's potential to make the taxpayer suffer? Really
"Where did "children" come into this?" ... They can be used, can't they? After-all, your big concern about polygamy is the "multiple" possibilities of a family scamming the system. What if that gay marriage has 5 children created for them? Now, they can scam just as easily as 5 wives of the polygamist.
DeleteYou DO realize all this is to show how inconsequential your opposition to polygamy is. The base facts are that you favor gay marriage in spite of the immense cost to the taxpayer and you oppose polygamy because of the possible cost to the taxpayer. Or, to put it a way you might understand... you favor one group of sexual perverts and oppose another group of sexual perverts with no rational excuse other than your moral barometer.
"It's still not clear what "scamming" you're talking about. Fighting for rights is not a "scam". Divorce is not a "scam"." ... You know, I'm not exactly sure. You never did explain what kind of scamming that YOU think polygamists will do, as YOU brought scamming into the discussion on marriage rights. Why don't you explain what kind of scamming you are talking about. It would be quite a relief to see you finally explain yourself and your unreasonable position on marriage rights.
Delete"... Exactly. According to your fear of polygamy, you should fear legally sanctioned marriages of any type."
DeleteNo, because I'm not an anarchist. We can have legal systems set up for people even if there's some abuse. That's different from allowing something that can't be reined in.
"... Yes, but they would be "new" cases, since they did not have that option before legal gay marriage. You can't go on an assumption that gays will marry 'straight' in order to get benefits."
According to you, they did, because they "chose" to be gay.
"... They can be used, can't they?"
This is your assertion, not mine. How can they be used?
"What if that gay marriage has 5 children created for them? Now, they can scam just as easily as 5 wives of the polygamist."
Assuming there's some scam involving children, and also assuming that the polygamists don't have children. Are you talking adoption, or what? Because if there's really some scam, the process is probably going to pick up on that after a couple of adopted children.
"You DO realize all this is to show how inconsequential your opposition to polygamy is. The base facts are that you favor gay marriage in spite of the immense cost to the taxpayer and you oppose polygamy because of the possible cost to the taxpayer."
I know what you think you're doing, yes. Again, there's no reason to draw a line at a certain amount of expense regarding "two consenting adults". If we accept heterosexual marriage (and both of us do), then the small added percentage of gay marriage is acceptable as well. As I said, your dream scenario is that everyone would "choose" to be straight, so it's hard you would be demanding some ceiling of expense under those circumstances.
"You never did explain what kind of scamming that YOU think polygamists will do, as YOU brought scamming into the discussion on marriage rights."
Of course I did. The whole point is that many people will engage in polygamy even though they've never had any desire to engage in polyamory. Maybe you should re-read some of these threads if you're truly this lost at this point.
Underedit:"hard to believe you would be demanding..."
Delete"We can have legal systems set up for people even if there's some abuse." ... So, the legal system that can be set up for abuses will not work with polygamy? How so? Let me guess: because you fear them so much that you wouldn't be able to write laws quick enough to get them all into jail?
Delete"According to you, they did, because they "chose" to be gay." ... Address the "new cases" aspect of that statement. Not a part that isn't even mentioned it it. That was an expected diversion. You ARE good at that, aren't you?
"How can they be used?" ... I explained that already. But, for the "slow" people, I'll do it again. Gay couples will seek to have children, also. When they start having 5, 10, 20 children created for them (and EACH one of them getting the federal benefits that you fear from polygamy) and that will be an added burden on the taxpayer. Since your biggest fear of polygamy is that they will scam the system using multiple wives, why doesn't gay marriage put that same fear into you when they can create multiple children (each deserving those federal benefits you refuse to give polygamists). Does that mess up your fear of the one sexual perversion?
"Because if there's really some scam, the process is probably going to pick up on that after a couple of adopted children." ... Oh Gee, that would NEVER happen with polygamy, huh? "The process" would NEVER be able to "pick up on" abuses as they happen within polygamy, right? That makes your unreasonable fear of polygamy even more unreasonable. Thanks for that tidbit.
"Of course I did." ... No, you did not. You mentioned some military-only expenses. But there are only a handful of gays in the military. As YOU know. Bring some real-world expenses. Expenses that the other 95% of America may see.
"Maybe you should re-read some of these threads if you're truly this lost at this point." ... Maybe you should get a new ass-hole. The way I've been reaming yours, it must be pretty sore. And MAYBE, you'll address that actual point someday: That expenses will be the same within any legally sanctioned marriage. You simply fear polygamy because you're a bigot.
"... So, the legal system that can be set up for abuses will not work with polygamy?"
DeleteBecause current marriages are naturally limited, while polygamy is not.
"... Address the "new cases" aspect of that statement. Not a part that isn't even mentioned it it."
Explain why your view of "choice" to be gay is not relevant. You want people to choose to be straight, but you have a limit on the expense of marriage. How does that work?
"... I explained that already."
When?
"When they start having 5, 10, 20 children created for them (and EACH one of them getting the federal benefits that you fear from polygamy) and that will be an added burden on the taxpayer."
How are they a "burden"? Be specific. What expenses are you talking about?
"... Oh Gee, that would NEVER happen with polygamy, huh?"
How do you tell if someone isn't genuinely interested in polyamorous relationships? Are you going to read their mind, or what?
"... No, you did not. You mentioned some military-only expenses."
Then you were already familiar with the concept of abuse.
"But there are only a handful of gays in the military."
We weren't talking about homosexuality. We were talking about people taking advantage of benefits through polygamy.
"... Maybe you should get a new ass-hole. The way I've been reaming yours, it must be pretty sore."
Did Jesus say that? I know you claim to be a Christian, but you sure don't sound like you emulate Christ.
"And MAYBE, you'll address that actual point someday: That expenses will be the same within any legally sanctioned marriage."
That's not a point, since you haven't explained why that's true. Earlier you seemed to accept that anyone getting government benefits would see them applied to all spouses, but for some reason you don't remember that now. Probably because it clearly means that polygamy would cost more than a marriage where everyone has one designated partner.
As always, your baseless assertions fail. Try again, this time with some substance.
"How are they a "burden"? Be specific. What expenses are you talking about?" ... They will be the same expenses as you un-realistically envision from legal polygamy. Remember, these are YOUR FEARS, not mine. YOU are the one who fears the expense that polygamy MAY cause. How would the benefits that children get be any different than the benefits that wives get? Don't military children get all the same medical benefits and most the other benefits you listed in your false judgment that marriage rights will be abused ONLY by the polygamist?
Delete"How do you tell if someone isn't genuinely interested in polyamorous relationships?" ... Well, you could try 'faith in mankind' or 'trust'. But, those values don't appear in your beliefs, do they?
"We weren't talking about homosexuality. We were talking about people taking advantage of benefits through polygamy." ... What costs the taxpayers is still a cost whether the homosexual creates it or the polygamist. Do you feel that extreme costs that gay marriage will create is less important than the minor expense the polygamist may create?
"Did Jesus say that? I know you claim to be a Christian, but you sure don't sound like you emulate Christ." ... Do you see ME walking on water? Do you see ME raising the dead? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
"That's not a point, since you haven't explained why that's true." ... I haven't needed to. YOU did when you claim "human nature" will cause the polygamist to scam the system. Human nature covers ALL marriages.
"Probably because it clearly means that polygamy would cost more than a marriage where everyone has one designated partner." ... What you fail to account for is that your "a marriage" is actually millions of them. And, your "polygamy" would only be a few thousand. So, even if every man (or woman) heading a polygamist relationship could have 20 spouses it still would not cost as much as gay marriage will. That's the "baseless assertion" you fail to address.
"... They will be the same expenses as you un-realistically envision from legal polygamy."
DeleteReally? Because the government pays its employees to have as many children as possible? Waiting for evidence of this.
"Don't military children get all the same medical benefits and most the other benefits you listed in your false judgment that marriage rights will be abused ONLY by the polygamist?"
So people are going to pay for clothing, food, a large enough house, etc, so that they can scam the government for health care for kids? I'm not seeing the profit involved, but maybe you can clarify. Did the Army pay people more money for having more children when you were in? I don't believe it's that way currently.
"... Well, you could try 'faith in mankind' or 'trust'. But, those values don't appear in your beliefs, do they?"
So, when talking about detecting fraud, your ultimate answer is to "trust" people. Did you forget the context?
"... What costs the taxpayers is still a cost whether the homosexual creates it or the polygamist."
Or the heterosexual, remember. Those damn straight people and their marriages, right?
"Do you feel that extreme costs that gay marriage will create is less important than the minor expense the polygamist may create?"
There's no difference between the costs of gay marriage and straight marriage. Again, you're setting up an arbitrary line of expense. Think of it this way;let's say that gay people get tired of "choosing" to be that way, weary of the mockery and beatings and being dragged from trucks, that sort of thing, and the trend shifts. People begin to "choose" to be straight. Now, some guy's about to get married to a good church-going girl, and you're standing there saying no, there's enough expense with all the straight marriages as there are, so those people just have to go off and live in sin. That seems rather unfair of you, I would say.
"... Do you see ME walking on water? Do you see ME raising the dead? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I can't "see" you doing anything, technically. More importantly, that has to be one of the most disjointed things you've posted. You have to perform miracles to emulate Christ?
"... I haven't needed to. YOU did when you claim "human nature" will cause the polygamist to scam the system. Human nature covers ALL marriages."
I said human nature covers all marriages. Scroll up. The point is that if you don't limit benefits to polygamy, then it's easier to abuse than marriage between two consenting adults. By a long, long shot.
"... What you fail to account for is that your "a marriage" is actually millions of them. And, your "polygamy" would only be a few thousand."
You assume it would only be a few thousand. What happened to "50 women", by the way? And, of course, I do address your "millions of them" argument by pointing out that you think being gay is a choice, so you can't possibly draw a line regarding expense. You can't deal with that, which is why you keep dodging that question.
"Or the heterosexual, remember. Those damn straight people and their marriages, right?" .. . That's what I said a couple posts ago. Did you miss it or skip over it? http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-clever-sounds-like-to-stupid-person.html?showComment=1365519390843#c1356609833386419996 You denied that as an option because you aren't an anarchist.
Delete"I said human nature covers all marriages. Scroll up." ... Whoa, does that mean you ARE an anarchist? What a minute, you just got done saying you're not one. Can you make up you mind before you respond any further?
When you say:: "We can have legal systems set up for people even if there's some abuse. That's different from allowing something that can't be reined in." .... then ... "Because current marriages are naturally limited, while polygamy is not.". Are you saying that the government is NOT smart enough to stop a couple hundred polygamists from scamming them? Is that what you're saying? Really?
"You have to perform miracles to emulate Christ?" ... I think you need to know who Christ is before you lecture people on Christianity. I hardly think an atheist can tell me what is Christ like. But if you feel you need to try, you go girl!
"And, of course, I do address your "millions of them" argument by pointing out that you think being gay is a choice, so you can't possibly draw a line regarding expense." ... And your answer to the (hypothetical) millions of NEW court cases caused by legal gay marriage is to change the subject. Way to give up so easily.
"That's what I said a couple posts ago. Did you miss it or skip over it?"
DeleteObviously neither, since you say right afterwards that I "denied that as an option". I'm mocking you, while pointing out that you keep gravitating towards homosexuality while claiming to have the same opinions about straight marriage.
"... Whoa, does that mean you ARE an anarchist?"
No. How would that make me an anarchist?
"Are you saying that the government is NOT smart enough to stop a couple hundred polygamists from scamming them?"
Again with the wishful thinking of a "couple hundred". Are you saying there's a way to stop people from scamming the government if you give benefits out to as many spouses as one person wants to have? With no limitations? I'd like to hear how you think it can be done, with specifics.
" ... I think you need to know who Christ is before you lecture people on Christianity. I hardly think an atheist can tell me what is Christ like."
You don't have to believe in something to understand it. I can say with some certainty that he was not as vile in his behavior as you are, and if you'd like to post up some scripture to prove me wrong, I'd simply love to see that.
"... And your answer to the (hypothetical) millions of NEW court cases caused by legal gay marriage is to change the subject."
What's the new "subject"? You don't think homosexuality is a choice? We're not talking about gay marriage, while you're talking about "new cases" of divorce through gay marriage? As always, you use "change the subject" as an excuse to avoid justifying your own arguments, because my point is inconvenient to you. Quite weak, really.
"Again with the wishful thinking of a "couple hundred". " ... Well, how many do you think there are gonna be? I've been trying to get you to answer that since day-one. You STILL refuse to answer it. You'll deny an entire group of people their rights to marriage using a "hypothetical", then you deride me for "wishful thinking". OMG, you are a doofus.
DeleteHowever, you ignored the actual question while taking the opportunity to show everyone how ignorant you are. Answer the question: Do you think the government isn't smart enough to stop a couple hundred polygamists from scamming them? Yes or No."
"I can say with some certainty that he was not as vile in his behavior as you are, and if you'd like to post up some scripture to prove me wrong, I'd simply love to see that." ... Matthew 23:33 (read the whole chapter if that helps). Jesus is calling His 'fellow man' some awful names. Using some very strong language. Proof that an atheist cannot tell a Christian what it is to be "Christ like" or say with any "certainty" what Jesus is like. "Woe to YOU" He says.
"We're not talking about gay marriage, while you're talking about "new cases" of divorce through gay marriage?" ... Yes, we are talking about gay marriage. No, we are not talking about how they chose to be that way. If you want to go off onto that subject, you go right ahead. I would expect nothing less from you.
When you get done changing the subject, let's get back to the actual question (that you won't answer): How many NEW cases do you think gay marriage will bring? Less or more than what polygamy will bring? Does your "human nature" ideals apply to gays too? Or are you changing the subject because you are afraid to answer that question?
"... Well, how many do you think there are gonna be? I've been trying to get you to answer that since day-one. You STILL refuse to answer it."
DeleteYou already agreed it wasn't quantifiable, so, I guess you're done asking for that particular wild guess. Sorry.
"You'll deny an entire group of people their rights to marriage using a "hypothetical", then you deride me for "wishful thinking"."
You haven't established why there should be a "right" to polygamy, though. And what that has to do with the logical fallacy of wishful thinking is unclear.
"Do you think the government isn't smart enough to stop a couple hundred polygamists from scamming them? Yes or No."
If you can't explain how they're supposed to be able to stop them, then obviously your question is flawed.
"... Matthew 23:33 (read the whole chapter if that helps). Jesus is calling His 'fellow man' some awful names."
Anything about inbreeding or homosexuality in there? There's a difference between righteous indignation and casting vile aspersions simply because someone disagrees with you. Would you like to argue against that?
"... Yes, we are talking about gay marriage. No, we are not talking about how they chose to be that way."
So your beliefs and attitudes regarding homosexuality aren't relevant to your discussion of gay rights? That seems pretty difficult for you to justify, but give it a shot if you like.
"How many NEW cases do you think gay marriage will bring?"
I don't consider them "NEW cases", because we both believe everyone should be able to marry at least one other consenting adult. The only difference is that you think everyone should "choose" to be straight, while I believe it's not a choice, and so people should be able to enter gay marriage.
"Does your "human nature" ideals apply to gays too? Or are you changing the subject because you are afraid to answer that question?"
I've said multiple times that human nature applies to everyone. Why you're having so much trouble with this concept is a mystery.
"Anything about inbreeding or homosexuality in there?" ... You didn't ask for any "inbreeding or homosexuality". Did you?
DeleteWell, I see you've completely gone off-track on each and every question I asked you. I didn't think you had it in you to honestly answer those questions. Democrats seem to act that way often. Too bad, it makes it difficult to have conversations with your ilk.
"... You didn't ask for any "inbreeding or homosexuality". Did you?"
DeleteI specified "as vile". You failed to bring an example of that.
"Well, I see you've completely gone off-track on each and every question I asked you."
Sorry, pointing out the logical flaws in your questions is perfectly valid. Of course you don't have an argument otherwise, just generalizations and empty assertions. It's all you ever had.
"I specified "as vile". You failed to bring an example of that." ... I did bring an example of that. He even uses the word in His statements. Let me give you some advise: don't EVER try to tell a Christian about Christ.
Delete"Sorry, pointing out the logical flaws in your questions is perfectly valid." ... Sure it's perfectly valid ... if I were writing a HS paper. But, I'm not. So, you are avoiding the questions. I never expected that!
Funny thing is that you can't prove ANY of what you say will happen. You can't prove "human nature", you can't prove marriage scamming, you can't prove Christ like and you can't prove 'born that way'. Do you have ANY stances that you can actually prove? Or is everything you say simply your bigoted opinion?
Sounds like the later. But, time will tell if you ever get the guts to answer any of those questions.
"... I did bring an example of that. He even uses the word in His statements."
DeleteI didn't ask for him using the word "vile". Calling someone "vile" is not "vile" itself. Wow.
" ... Sure it's perfectly valid ... if I were writing a HS paper."
So, your questions don't have to be valid, and I still have to answer "yes or no" to them. Sorry, that's not going to happen, and you can't possibly make a case that I should.
"Funny thing is that you can't prove ANY of what you say will happen."
Never claimed I could. I was always aware that you brought up a hypothetical scenario, so nothing could ever be proven. It's a reasonable conclusion, and you have nothing to show otherwise.
"You can't prove "human nature", you can't prove marriage scamming, you can't prove Christ like and you can't prove 'born that way'."
What does "can't prove 'human nature' mean, exactly? Why do we have laws if we think people do the right thing all the time, in your opinion? "Prove Christ like" is fairly cryptic, as well. I didn't say "born that way". That's your quote, not mine.
"Do you have ANY stances that you can actually prove?"
"Stances"? As in "opinions"? That sounds very odd, especially when you asked for my opinion on polygamy. Why do you ask for things that you don't want?
"I was always aware that you brought up a hypothetical scenario, so nothing could ever be proven." ... I did? Where?
DeleteRemember this one? Things haven't changed.
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-clever-sounds-like-to-stupid-person.html?showComment=1363713887909#c8793772870531723656
You don't seem to want to answer for anything you say.
"What does "can't prove 'human nature' mean, exactly?" ... Why don't you answer that one for everyone? YOU brought it up, you explain your intentions with the use. Oops, a question you won't answer.
"I didn't say "born that way"." ... You have said it is NOT a chosen lifestyle. What other option is there? Here's another question you won't answer.
""Stances"? As in "opinions"? " ... Yes. Show you aren't a bigot with those "opinions".
"... I did? Where?"
DeleteSeriously?:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362056078028#c3947697139152725969
"You don't seem to want to answer for anything you say."
So you link to you refusing to answer questions, in order to prove something about me? Bizarre.
"... Why don't you answer that one for everyone? YOU brought it up, you explain your intentions with the use. Oops, a question you won't answer."
Again, I have to post your entire sequence of sentences, to highlight the hilarity of you avoiding a question and then chastising me for not answering questions in advance. What part of the phrase is unclear to you, specifically? You've really never heard it before, or what? Again, why do you think we have laws if people are so pure of heart?
"... You have said it is NOT a chosen lifestyle. What other option is there? Here's another question you won't answer."
The laughs keep coming. You don't remember your insane insistence that I supposedly said genetic influences affect the formative years? That stemmed from my answer to your question, where I said it was probably a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors.
"... Yes. Show you aren't a bigot with those "opinions"."
Well, you brought it up, so you should prove it. And you haven't, because your argument relies on you denying the difference between "two consenting adults" and "any number of consenting adults". Further, you just admitted that you want me to "prove" an "opinion". That's rather stupid of you. Would you like to amend your demands, perhaps?
"Seriously?" ... Hey doofus. What "hypothetical scenario" did I bring up at your link? What a loser, you can't even bring evidence from posts-gone-by to support your stances.
Delete"Again, I have to post your entire sequence of sentences," ... Hey doofus. Where's you excuse for STARTING the use of "human nature"? Wait ... your excuse is that I avoided a question at some point? Good job, bigot. You can't even keep straight what YOU say.
"You don't remember your insane insistence that I supposedly said genetic influences affect the formative years?" ... Oh I remember. How could anyone be so stupid making that claim as you did. Too bad for you it wasn't a "supposedly" situation. You actually DID say that.
I asked you 3 main questions in that last post. You ignored answering and instead changed the subject in ALL 3.
#1: you linked a post completely unrelated to the question
#2: you cried something about not answering questions, then wanted to discuss morals
#3: you went to another subject about 'genetic influence' without even mentioning the question.
Let's try again. Perhaps you can get someone to help you read the questions? Since you obviously can't read (and understand) them yourself. Anyway, we'll try again (even though you'll avoid answering them).
1; What "hypothetical scenario" did I start?
2: What were your intentions with the use of "human nature"?
3: What other option is there?
Vegas odds are very good that you'll ignore those questions again. One day (when you grow up) you'll be able to have honest conversations with people (besides your left hand, wipe that stuff off your keyboard). Today, isn't that day, is it? Ooops, that was one last question that you'll refuse to answer. You are so obviously the typical democrat: you make claims and demands, yet can't show evidence of or a need for either, you just blow shit out of your ass and call it a rose then claim the shit smells like a rose and then get mad when others don't agree with you that shit smells like a rose.
You were fun, but obviously not up to my level. You take care, now.
"What "hypothetical scenario" did I bring up at your link?"
DeleteLegalized polygamy is a hypothetical scenario, since polygamy is currently illegal.
"Where's you excuse for STARTING the use of "human nature"? Wait ... your excuse is that I avoided a question at some point? Good job, bigot. You can't even keep straight what YOU say."
Why do I need an "excuse" for pointing out that people will scam the government when given the opportunity? And how is it an "excuse" to say you're avoiding the question (as you still are) when you whined about me not answering your question?
"... Oh I remember. How could anyone be so stupid making that claim as you did."
Feel free to pick up your argument on that thread, then. I'm not particularly apprehensive about it.
"1; What "hypothetical scenario" did I start?
2: What were your intentions with the use of "human nature"?
3: What other option is there?"
1:Answered, and something that's been established from the start. For some reason you didn't want to challenge the word "hypothetical" all the previous times I mentioned it, but suddenly it's a point of contention.
2:How many sets of "intentions" could there be? Your refusal to answer basic questions about why we have laws tells me you know full well what my point is.
3:You just said you remembered my answer to that question.
"You were fun, but obviously not up to my level. You take care, now."
Don't trip while scurrying off.
"Legalized polygamy is a hypothetical scenario, since polygamy is currently illegal." ... Mr. Simpleton, where did I mention "polygamy" in the link you provided? You don't even have the intelligence to post a link properly. How are you expected to compete with my knowledge?
Delete"Don't trip while scurrying off." ... Don't worry, little-one, I won't trip. Unless you get your little tiny feet in my way. When you grow up, we can have further discussions. Until then, you're still a little whiner who runs away from questions that show how stupid you are and how stupid your ideals are. But, that's the life of a democrat ... and an atheist one at that. Your ilk are all afraid to answer questions, aren't you?
"Vegas odds are very good that you'll ignore those questions again." ... Vegas wins again. You failed to answer each question. Like a little child, you are so predictable.
"... Mr. Simpleton, where did I mention "polygamy" in the link you provided?"
DeleteThis goes beyond semantics on your part:"... no inconsistency. What "harm" comes from marriage where the husband has multiple wives?" If you can explain how that's not polygamy, I'd like to see that.
"... Vegas wins again. You failed to answer each question."
Sorry, no payouts because you failed to explain how I didn't answer your questions. Your assertions are worthless.
I'll add on to your absurd claim about not mentioning "polygamy". Here's what you quoted from my response to the post in question: ".... and the "NEED" to justify the state sanctioning gay marriage ... is what?" Notice that you didn't ask why I brought up "polygamy", supposedly out of the blue, or accuse me of changing the subject, as you love to do so much.
DeleteAlso notice that I didn't say you used the exact word "polygamy", so your defense is dishonest on every level.
"If you can explain how that's not polygamy, I'd like to see that." ... Oh, that? It absolutely insinuates polygamy. However, YOU SAID I brought a "hypothetical scenario" into the conversation. Where is the hypothetical scenario that I brought? Where did I mention "legalized" polygamy? Murder is illegal, but that doesn't make it a "hypothetical scenario" does it? That's why I consider you a child. You ask one thing (which is wrong) then defend it with something unrelated. Hey, simpleton, get your shit straight before you continue whining about subjects you are too stupid to understand.
Delete"Sorry, no payouts because you failed to explain how I didn't answer your questions." ... Ok, #1; you failed to answer that question because you are afraid to. #2: you failed to answer that question because you are too stupid to. #3 you failed to answer that question because you simply aren't smart enough. Now Vegas wins and you ... well ... you lose (again).
"Also notice that I didn't say you used the exact word "polygamy", so your defense is dishonest on every level." ... Well then, can you bring the evidence that I started a "hypothetical scenario" from your provided link? If you can't do that, then your entire whine is based on a lie. Which you do often, so I expect you to NOT answer yet another question. Children are good at not answering questions.
"... Oh, that? It absolutely insinuates polygamy."
DeleteActually, it defines polygamy.
"Where is the hypothetical scenario that I brought? Where did I mention "legalized" polygamy?"
As opposed to what? It's a legal concept. Were we talking about gay marriage, but not "legalized" gay marriage, or what?
"... Ok, #1; you failed to answer that question because you are afraid to. #2: you failed to answer that question because you are too stupid to. #3 you failed to answer that question because you simply aren't smart enough."
Substantiation regarding how I "failed" to anser anything, specifically? Of course not.
"... Well then, can you bring the evidence that I started a "hypothetical scenario" from your provided link?"
If you can demonstrate how the entire conversation hasn't been about legalized polygamy, then explain why you waited this long to mention that you meant something else (whatever that may be, and how it could possibly make sense is unclear), then let's see it. You're the one saying you meant something else at this point, so let's see you explain yourself. If you can't make sense out of it, then you're obviously lying.
Good luck!
"Were we talking about gay marriage, but not "legalized" gay marriage, or what?" ... That's correct. We were talking about the cost of legaling polygamy to legalizing gay marriage. So, where is the "hypothetical scenario" I brought concerning "legalized polygamy"?
Delete"If you can demonstrate how the entire conversation hasn't been about legalized polygamy, then explain why you waited this long to mention that you meant something else ..., then let's see it." ... I'm still waiting for you to prove the possibility of your hypothetical costs that will occur from legalized polygamy. I've demonstrated the costs of legalized gay marriage several times already. Why is that so tough? You've obviously got the internet, why don't you use it and prove your stance? Since that is the only reason you have to oppose polygamy marriage rights in direct comparison to the reasons (that you've stated) for supporting gay marriage rights. When will you ever address that issue. Since that issue has been talked about since the beginning of our conversations on gay/polygamy marriage rights and your hypocrisy/bigotry of one.
And don't even try to bring your "framework" into it again. You can't change the framework (and laws) of marriage in America from 1 man/1 woman in order to create a mythical argument in support of gay marriage rights without doing the same for polygamy. Unless you are hypocritical in your desire for equal marriage rights in America. It doesn't matter to anyone that you feel that way, just admit it.
"... That's correct. We were talking about the cost of legaling [sic] polygamy to legalizing gay marriage."
DeleteThen you're talking about legalized polygamy, which involves a hypothetical since it's currently illegal. Besides that, look at your quote above. Are we currently facing the cost of "legaling" polygamy? No? Then it's hypothetical.
"I'm still waiting for you to prove the possibility of your hypothetical costs that will occur from legalized polygamy."
You said yourself they couldn't be quantified. Your mind is like a sieve.
"You can't change the framework (and laws) of marriage in America from 1 man/1 woman in order to create a mythical argument in support of gay marriage rights without doing the same for polygamy."
The framework never was "1 man/1 woman", any more than the framework ever was "1 white man/1 white woman" or "1 black man/1 black woman". Those are traditions. The framework is two consenting adults. This is why gay marriage works exactly the same as straight marriage for legal purposes. Polygamy does not, which is why I don't have to support it, contrary to your assertion. Do you have anything of substance in response, or should I expect more "gay" jokes?
"Are we currently facing the cost of "legaling" polygamy? No? Then it's hypothetical." ... I know. The part you leave out is that YOU brought a 'cost' factor into the "hypothetical". Which means there could be a cost factor involved in your hypothetical. Are you following me so far? That means you have some idea of how much it will cost. All I'm asking (and have been for quite some time) is that you explain the cost. We all know about programs that can be scammed. I want to know what you think the costs will be.
DeleteMy point is that since you fear some great cost (yet unknown) to the government if polygamists get marriage rights that you will oppose their insinuated rights to marriage but you totally ignore the immense (and current costs) to the government for gay marriage rights. How do you do that without being hypocritical?
"The framework is two consenting adults." ... I just said you're not allowed to mythically create an argument. There is no "two" in the equation. It is 1 man/1 woman. You want to create a different scenario for your framework. If you're going to use "framework" in your argument, you MUST use the law as written: 1 man/1 woman. If you don't then your analogy if false and irrelevant.
BTW, racial equality rights are in NO way related to gay rights. Race is not a choice, homosexuality is.
"... I know. The part you leave out is that YOU brought a 'cost' factor into the "hypothetical"."
DeleteYou just admitted it was hypothetical, then. How does that fit in with your previous claims?
"Which means there could be a cost factor involved in your hypothetical. Are you following me so far? That means you have some idea of how much it will cost."
That doesn't follow in the slightest. It's entirely possible to determine that there will be abuse without quantifying it. Again, you said yourself it can't be quantified, yet you keep asking for specifics.
"My point is that since you fear some great cost (yet unknown) to the government if polygamists get marriage rights that you will oppose their insinuated rights to marriage but you totally ignore the immense (and current costs) to the government for gay marriage rights."
Because those costs are either justified by people gaining their due rights, or, if you're talking about divorce, there's no difference between that and divorce from straight marriage. This has been explained several times, but I'm glad to help.
" ... I just said you're not allowed to mythically create an argument. There is no "two" in the equation. It is 1 man/1 woman."
No, sorry. There's nothing about the way the laws work that require gender identification, any more than there was anything that required racial or religious identification.
"BTW, racial equality rights are in NO way related to gay rights. Race is not a choice, homosexuality is."
Your insane views have nothing to do with how the law functions. Even if it was a choice, there's nothing about the nature of the laws that would prevent it from applying. If you really believe that, then you would also believe that government could define marriage as being between two people of the same faith, since that is a choice. That would clearly be wrong, don't you think?
"It's entirely possible to determine that there will be abuse without quantifying it." ... You are absolutely right. And, that's what makes you a bigot.
Delete"Even if it was a choice, there's nothing about the nature of the laws that would prevent it from applying." ... I don't think you could explain that one if you tried. Nobody gives a fuck about the "nature of the laws". The FACT of the matter is the framework for marriage is 1 man/ 1 woman. You don't like it? Too bad, that's the way things are. No amount of your racist/bigoted hatred will ever change that.
"... You are absolutely right. And, that's what makes you a bigot."
DeleteAnd that's supposedly why you agreed it couldn't be quantified? Wow. There's nothing bigoted about that, any more than there is to support any law to prevent and/or punish wrongdoing. You don't know how many people would do the wrong thing otherwise, but you can still support the law.
" ... I don't think you could explain that one if you tried."
If you don't understand the plain language already there, I don't think anyone could explain it to you.
"Nobody gives a fuck about the "nature of the laws". The FACT of the matter is the framework for marriage is 1 man/ 1 woman."
No, there's nothing in the framework that requires gender identification. That's exactly what I'm saying about the nature of the laws. If you substitute two men or two women for the current legal concept, there are no repercussions.
"Too bad, that's the way things are. No amount of your racist/bigoted hatred will ever change that."
The irony of you calling me a bigot (racist? Where did that come from?) while pigheadedly insisting that marriage can't apply to same-sex couples is simply hilarious.
I notice you didn't answer the question about mixed-faith marriages. I guess that makes you a child, by your definition.
"If you don't understand the plain language already there, I don't think anyone could explain it to you." ... So, you can provide and explain 'conditions' (if it's not choice) for hypothetical homosexuality, but you cannot provide or explain 'conditions' (excessive court costs) for hypothetical polygamy? Interesting.
Delete"No, there's nothing in the framework that requires gender identification." ... Yes, there is. It is 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN. Gender identification is the key to this discussion. You don't feel there is a difference between men and women, normal people do. However, using your idiotic premise, there is no species identification in the "framework" either. Does that mean you support marriage rights for humans to animals? So, your "nature of the law" does not exclude the right for humans to marry animals. That's how STUPID your argument is.
"I notice you didn't answer the question about mixed-faith marriages." ... What would be the purpose of me following along on your off-topic rants against religion?
"... So, you can provide and explain 'conditions' (if it's not choice) for hypothetical homosexuality, but you cannot provide or explain 'conditions' (excessive court costs) for hypothetical polygamy?"
DeleteWhat are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the quote you're referencing?
"... Yes, there is. It is 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN."
That's an assertion, not an explanation.
"You don't feel there is a difference between men and women, normal people do."
Straw man. One can recognize the difference between men and women and also support gay marriage. If that was really your basis for what "requires" gender identification for a legal contract, you'll have to do better.
"However, using your idiotic premise, there is no species identification in the "framework" either. Does that mean you support marriage rights for humans to animals?"
No, "two consenting adults" means humans. More obviously, animals can't enter legal contracts. It's also wildly inconsistent with everything I've said regarding the purpose of marriage. So, sorry, your warped view of my premise is just that.
"... What would be the purpose of me following along on your off-topic rants against religion?"
How is supporting mixed-faith marriages "against religion"? It's also not off-topic, because we're discussing changes to traditional marriage. Mixed-faith marriage was a change to traditional marriage. And faith is a choice. Thoughts? Or will you continue to "act childish", by your own definition?
"That's an assertion, not an explanation." ... That's the LAW. Not an assertion (I don't know how you came to that conclusion) or an explanation (which I wasn't giving). That is so funny that you can no longer argue either "tradition" or "framework" because you haven't a leg to stand on since both tradition and framework coincide with the current 1 MAN / 1 WOMAN law. Although gay supporters are forcing the government to spend a fortune for court cases trying to make it legal. Which is your other main concern. Geez, you just don't have ANY argument left, do you?
Delete"One can recognize the difference between men and women and also support gay marriage." ... Hey, you can support gay marriage all day long for all I care. I just notice you're being a bigot and hypocritical in your reasoning to oppose polygamy.
"It's also not off-topic, because we're discussing changes to traditional marriage. Mixed-faith marriage was a change to traditional marriage." ... Really? How so? Seems to me that mixed faith marriages have been happening for centuries if not milleniums. That would make them 'traditional' also, correct? What makes you think that is not a traditional marriage situation? Do you have some kind of weird explanation for insinuating religion is the only possible "tradition" out there? Hell, even you atheists haven't gone out and gotten gay marriages, so gay marriage has never been any kind of tradition in America. If religious people don't have gay marriage as a "tradition" and atheists don't have gay marriage as a "tradition" how are you able to even remotely claim gay marriage rights using "tradition" as your excuse??
"... That's the LAW. Not an assertion (I don't know how you came to that conclusion) or an explanation (which I wasn't giving)."
DeleteI said that there was nothing that requires gender identification. You said "Yes, there is." So, that is either an assertion by itself or there should be an explanation following. If you can't explain what you said, then you're not actually disputing my point, now are you?
"That is so funny that you can no longer argue either "tradition" or "framework" because you haven't a leg to stand on since both tradition and framework coincide with the current 1 MAN / 1 WOMAN law."
The framework has nothing to do with gender identification any more than it ever did with racial identification. You have yet to reply to that point with anything other than empty assertions.
"Although gay supporters are forcing the government to spend a fortune for court cases trying to make it legal."
Who cares? Make it legal and you won't have any more costs.
"Hey, you can support gay marriage all day long for all I care."
In other words, your comment about recognizing the difference between men and women was idiotic. Thank you.
" ... Really? How so? Seems to me that mixed faith marriages have been happening for centuries if not milleniums."
Where did I say it was legally accepted recently? And it's still controversial within religious communities. Why should they have ever been accepted? In your views, I'd really like to know why they should be legal.
"That would make them 'traditional' also, correct?"
So in a few hundred years, gay marriage could be "traditional", and then there's no more problem. Got it.
"If religious people don't have gay marriage as a "tradition" and atheists don't have gay marriage as a "tradition" how are you able to even remotely claim gay marriage rights using "tradition" as your excuse??"
This isn't the first time you've claimed that I'm using "tradition" to support gay marriage. I'm not, and I don't expect you to explain how you're reaching that conclusion this time, either.
"You have yet to reply to that point " ... I don't plan on falling for your racist trap. Race relations and homosexuality are completely unrelated to each other with no comparisons.
Delete"Who cares? Make it legal and you won't have any more costs." ... Apparently, YOU DO! You're the one who declares polygamists unacceptable to receive marriage rights BECAUSE YOU FEAR HOW MUCH IT WILL COST THE GOVERNMENT. That is what YOU said, so that is YOUR stance on costs to our nation. Like I said you are a hypocrite for that belief too, because you accept one perversion in spite of costs and dis-favor another perversion because of costs.
And, BTW, the costs will NOT stop at legality. That would be yet another hypothetical that you cannot prove or substantiate.
"Where did I say it was legally accepted recently?" ... I didn't say you did. I didn't even use the word you highlighted. That is very dishonest of you to say I said something that I did not say.
"So in a few hundred years, gay marriage could be "traditional"," ... No, it could never be traditional. Unless it is a gay man marrying a gay woman, then that would be traditional.
"This isn't the first time you've claimed that I'm using "tradition" to support gay marriage." ... And, it won't be the last. Since YOU brought "tradition" into this discussion on marriages, I can use it any time I want. Thank you.
"In other words,... " ... Taking things out of context again? Very dishonest of you.
"Race relations and homosexuality are completely unrelated to each other with no comparisons."
DeleteNot as far as discrimination in the law is concerned. Again, your insane claim that homosexuality is a choice does not change anything.
"... Apparently, YOU DO!"
No, I've never claimed to care about any costs involved in fighting for due rights. Prove otherwise.
"And, BTW, the costs will NOT stop at legality."
What rights would need to be pursued after that point?
"... I didn't say you did. I didn't even use the word you highlighted. That is very dishonest of you to say I said something that I did not say."
I didn't say you used the word. Note the lack of quotation marks around it. You do know what a quotation mark is, right? The point is that at some point, what was accepted changed, while you're arguing that it's not a huge controversy or illegal within recent memory.
"... No, it could never be traditional."
Why not? You suggested yourself that mixed-faith marriages were "traditional" because they'd been going on for at least "centuries". Why is there a difference?
"... And, it won't be the last. Since YOU brought "tradition" into this discussion on marriages, I can use it any time I want. Thank you."
But you can't use it any way you want, because you're asking me to defend an argument I didn't make. Thank you.
"... Taking things out of context again?"
Be more specific as to how I'm supposedly doing that.
"Not as far as discrimination in the law is concerned." ... Yes, even as far as discrimination. They are related to each other in no way. Why are you such a racist hater?
Delete"Again, your insane claim that homosexuality is a choice does not change anything." ... When you have proof of another way they become homosexual then, by all means, bring that proof. Until then, IT IS CHOICE.
"What rights would need to be pursued after that point?" ... We're not talking "rights", we're talking "cost". And, the additional cost WILL be the millions of NEW court cases caused by divorcing gays. What "rights" are being pursued now? Since there are no "rights" to marriage.
"I didn't say you used the word. Note the lack of quotation marks around it." ... What did you mean by highlighting the word "legally"? BTW, I didn't say you quoted me, I said I didn't use the word you highlighted. Reading comprehension is absolutely missing in your brain.
"Why is there a difference?" ... Because it changes the "framework" AND "tradition" of marriage from 1 man / 1 woman to something completely different.
j
"... Yes, even as far as discrimination. They are related to each other in no way. Why are you such a racist hater?"
DeleteWhy would it be racist to oppose discrimination against both homosexuality and race? It's not clear what "hate" you think you're talking about. Now, can you explain what significant changes had to be made after interracial marriage was nationally legalized? I bet you can't. The same way you can't explain what significant changes would have to be made after gay marriage is legalized. Hence the comparison.
"... When you have proof of another way they become homosexual then, by all means, bring that proof. Until then, IT IS CHOICE."
Per your opinion. You don't dictate reality, and obviously society is turning on your kind.
"And, the additional cost WILL be the millions of NEW court cases caused by divorcing gays."
Which would be exactly the same if everyone was straight. Would you like to explain how you can put an arbitrary line on that, at some point? I've asked you more than once.
"What "rights" are being pursued now? Since there are no "rights" to marriage."
Loving v. Virginia. Look it up.
"... What did you mean by highlighting the word "legally"?"
Meaning I never commented on illegality. You said that interfaith marriages have been going on for hundreds of years. That doesn't mean that, at some point, tradition didn't dictate marrying within your own faith.
"BTW, I didn't say you quoted me, I said I didn't use the word you highlighted."
What the hell is the difference between "quot(ing)" your word and using a word that you used? Since I didn't claim that you used the word, you have no point.
" ... Because it changes the "framework" AND "tradition" of marriage from 1 man / 1 woman to something completely different."
What does that have to do with why something would not become "tradition" after a few hundred years? And, yet again, the framework does not involve gender identification, despite your desperate assertion otherwise.
I see you didn't explain the "out of context" charge. I'll chalk that up as a lie on your part, then.
"Which would be exactly the same if everyone was straight." ... No, doofus. That is not true. Those new cases are because of gay marriage NOT straight marriage.
Delete"Loving v. Virginia." ... There you go again, racist. Trying to equate gay marriage to civil rights. There is NO comparison. There are NO civil rights for choosing to be gay. You still have not offered another option for how they got gay, either. Are you capable of doing that?
"the framework does not involve gender identification," ... Yes, it does. Are you a complete moron? Can't you SEE the 1 MAN / 1 WOMAN there? That's MAN and WOMAN in the "framework" for marriage. NOT 2 men NOR 1 women. Are you acting stupid or really that way?
" I'll chalk that up as a lie on your part, then." ... Yes, you are really stupid.
The out of context quote you brought: "Hey, you can support gay marriage all day long for all I care."
The IN context quote I said: "Hey, you can support gay marriage all day long for all I care. I just notice you're being a bigot and hypocritical in your reasoning to oppose polygamy."
Which was the part you failed to respond to. Meaning you agree that you are a bigoted hypocrite for your reasoning to oppose polygamy. Since you took it out of context that obviously means you aren't disagreeing that you are a bigot and hypocrite. Thanks for that.
"You don't dictate reality," ... Yes, I do in this case. You can't offer ANY other reason they are gay without bringing "born that way" into it. And, that is purely opinion with NO medical evidence. Bring it doofus. You lose if you can't. That would equate to me winning. You lose, I win.
Thanks for letting this genius tear apart every single argument you attempted to bring into this discussion. Remember, when you make a claim, you need to offer proof. Without it, you're a loser.
This should read: "NOT 2 men NOR 2 women".
DeleteI went back are read some of your shit on the 'human sexuality is complicated' thread. Did you know that you made a claim that if gay marriage is legalized ALL related court cases would cease? Well, didn't Massachusetts legalize gay marriage in 2004? This is the year 2013 and court cases are STILL tying up the legal system in that state and in federal courts.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts
In Connecticut, the court cases are STILL going on despite that state legalizing gay marriage several years ago.
In Iowa it was legalized in 2008. Guess what ... that's right, court cases STILL going on 5 years later.
Maine was one of the first states to have it voted for by the public (last year) ... THEY STILL have cases going.
The FACTS are that every state that has legalized gay marriage still has it's court system being tied up by cases involving legalizing gay marriage.
Do you see a pattern going on here? You probably don't, but I certainly do. And that pattern is that legalizing gay marriage DID NOT STOP THE COURT CASES.
Would that mean that EVERY time you make that claim it should be considered a LIE?
"... No, doofus. That is not true. Those new cases are because of gay marriage NOT straight marriage."
DeleteI didn't say they were because of straight marriage.
"... There you go again, racist."
You said there was no right to marriage. Loving v. Virginia is a SCOTUS case involving the right to marriage. And, again, you don't explain what's "racist" about anything I've said.
"You still have not offered another option for how they got gay, either. Are you capable of doing that?"
You mean, besides saying I think it's a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors, which I've said more than once? What other "option" are you demanding?
"That's MAN and WOMAN in the "framework" for marriage."
No, that's the tradition. You have yet to show what significant changes occur with same-sex marriage.
"Which was the part you failed to respond to."
Which is the same lame set of charges you've been vomiting this entire time. So what? It has nothing to do with the specific point at hand, so it didn't bear an additional response. You failed to support your comment about not knowing the difference between men and women, therefore you conceded that your argument was invalid.
"... Yes, I do in this case."
This comment really says everything there is about you. You don't dictate reality, ever. What you should try to claim is that you have a better argument, which you don't anyway.
"You can't offer ANY other reason they are gay without bringing "born that way" into it."
You're the one that keeps saying "born that way". And by your logic, you can't offer any other reason than "choice". Can you prove that? Can you even show how it makes one goddamn iota of sense? No, you can't. Therefore, when evaluating the two theories, you lose. I have a reasonable conclusion on my side, you don't. You don't get to demand evidence and then declare victory if it doesn't exist.
"Remember, when you make a claim, you need to offer proof."
Then you can't claim homosexuality is a choice. Absence of evidence against your side is not proof for your case.
"Do you see a pattern going on here? You probably don't, but I certainly do. And that pattern is that legalizing gay marriage DID NOT STOP THE COURT CASES."
Did you notice, possibly, that most of those court cases involved the issue of whether people could come in from other states to get valid marriages? If gay marriage is legalized, then you won't have that issue. It will be legal everywhere. Did you also notice that nothing is listed on that timeline for almost five years now?
Or did you think I wasn't going to look?
"You mean, besides saying I think it's a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors, which I've said more than once? " ... We've already gone through that. You could not explain how genetics effect gays during the "formative years". Which is when you said genetics effect them.
Delete"No, that's the tradition." ... Yes, that's tradition. Unfortunately for you, that is also the framework. Realize this: YOU were the stupid person who thought you were clever by even bring framework into the discussion. Perhaps you should have thought that through before you did.
"What you should try to claim is that you have a better argument, which you don't anyway." ... When you get to the education level it takes for YOU to be able to tell ME how to write, I'll listen to you. Until then, you're a doofus with a much lower education than I have. And, it shows by your lack of response to pertinent questions.
"Then you can't claim homosexuality is a choice. " ... Yes I can. Because it is. There is NO other way it could happen. Absence of evidence does not invalidate that FACT.
"Did you notice, possibly, that most of those court cases involved the issue of whether people could come in from other states to get valid marriages? If gay marriage is legalized, then you won't have that issue." ... I was right (again). You DO NOT SEE the pattern. Here it is in a nutshell: YOU said the court cases would STOP when gay marriage was legalized, PERIOD. I brought evidence that shows the court cases did NOT STOP after gay marriage was legalized.
"Did you also notice that nothing is listed on that timeline for almost five years now?" ... What are you talking about. Did you not notice the mention of Maine? So, apparently, even if you LOOK you still cannot SEE.
So, answer the question: are you lying when you claim court cases will stop when gay marriage is legalized?
"You could not explain how genetics effect gays during the "formative years". Which is when you said genetics effect them."
DeleteNo, I did not say that. That was your bizarre, inexplicable interpretation.
"... Yes, that's tradition. Unfortunately for you, that is also the framework."
You keep saying that, yet you can't explain what significant changes would come about through same-sex marriage.
"And, it shows by your lack of response to pertinent questions."
You don't explain how your questions are "pertinent" when pressed. Meanwhile, you dodge questions that go to the core of your argument.
"... Yes I can. Because it is."
By your own argument, you can't. You have no evidence.
"Here it is in a nutshell: YOU said the court cases would STOP when gay marriage was legalized, PERIOD."
When did I advocate gay marriage for one specific state? Never, you say? Good. Then the point remains that when gay marriage is legalized, you won't have any more lawsuits fighting for those rights. You bringing up one state and then noting follow-up hearings regarding whether people from other states can get valid same-sex marriages there is clearly not relevant to that.
"Did you not notice the mention of Maine?"
Here's what you wrote:"Maine was one of the first states to have it voted for by the public (last year) ..."
I specifically talked about the link you provided. Nothing's happened for the last five years on that timeline, so the suggestion that there's some steady flow of litigation is absurd. What cases are there in Maine regarding rights, if not coming from people from other states trying to get married there?
"So, answer the question: are you lying when you claim court cases will stop when gay marriage is legalized?"
Obviously not. Who's going to sue for rights, Canadians? The entire country would be covered, so all interstate issues would be void. Next?
"Then the point remains that when gay marriage is legalized, you won't have any more lawsuits fighting for those rights." ... That may be your "point", but the FACTS say otherwise. Gay marriage is legalized in several states, now. Name ONE of those states where the court cases have ceased because of legalization. Do you think it would be different federally? Perhaps you do, but the FACTS show otherwise. And that makes you a lying bigoted hypocrite.
Delete"Nothing's happened for the last five years on that timeline, so the suggestion that there's some steady flow of litigation is absurd." ... Ahhh, changing the parameters again? When did "steady flow" come into the discussion? It must have been just now because I beat down yet ANOTHER of your lame excuses to be a bigot toward a sexually deviant lifestyle.
"What cases are there in Maine regarding rights, if not coming from people from other states trying to get married there?" ... Doesn't matter "what" cases, it matters that there "ARE" cases. You definitely said ALL court cases would stop once gay marriage is legalized. You lied. And you continue to support that lie with further lies.
"... That may be your "point", but the FACTS say otherwise."
DeleteNo, they don't, because you're comparing state to federal.
"Do you think it would be different federally? Perhaps you do, but the FACTS show otherwise."
Explain your logic. Or, even better, answer the question below.
"... Ahhh, changing the parameters again?"
Not at all. See, if you legalize polygamy, then there's no end to the potential legal battles amongst multiple spouses. Your example only shows a question regarding residents of other states, and then nothing afterwards. So, even if I was talking about legalization for one state (and I wasn't), then your comparison is still idiotic.
" ... Doesn't matter "what" cases, it matters that there "ARE" cases."
Oh, yes it does. Again, I'm talking about federal legalization. That's always been the case, unless you have an example of me specifying some state (hint:you don't). Can you explain why there would be any legal issues regarding other states when federally recognized gay marriage would cover every state?
Here's another hint:you can't.
I'll take your dodge of every other point from my previous point as an admission of defeat. By all means, try to pursue your current argument instead. It's too damn easy.
"No, they don't, because you're comparing state to federal." ... You have never separated the two. Is that what you are going to do now in order to avoid being shown you are an idiot? YOU said legal gay marriage will END court cases. There IS legal gay marriage and court cases continue. YOU LIED or YOU ARE WRONG, which is it? Or, I'll give you one more option: show where you separated federal from state before I mentioned state/federal differences.
Delete"Explain your logic. Or, even better, answer the question below." ... If you don't mind, I'll use YOUR excuse: "human nature". Unless you think human nature won't affect in a constant proportion to the population. In which case you are LYING again. Are you LYING or are you WRONG? Which is it?
"Oh, yes it does. Again, I'm talking about federal legalization." .... That's yet another lie brought by you. Since when have you been talking about federal? Wait, let me guess, since I blew your argument out of the water and now you've got to change your stance.
"Can you explain why there would be any legal issues regarding other states when federally recognized gay marriage would cover every state?" ... Do federal laws over-rule state laws regarding abortion? No, they don't. States get to choose what they want to do. Several states have legalized pot, federal does not. Several states have more restrictive abortion laws than federal. That's why we have the Constitution and BOR's to give the states power to choose for themselves how to conduct daily life in order to STOP federal intrusion in our lives. Being a democrat you should already know that. But, being the doofus you are, you think that only applies to arguments that you make and not ones that others make.
"Here's another hint:you can't." ... Here's a fact ... I JUST DID
"... You have never separated the two."
DeleteI never needed to. Besides that, even if there was some clarification needed (and there wasn't), then such clarification has now been provided. Since you have absolutely nothing to suggest, much less prove, that I meant an individual state, your argument is still null and void.
"YOU LIED or YOU ARE WRONG, which is it?"
Neither, because I wasn't talking about individual states.
"Or, I'll give you one more option: show where you separated federal from state before I mentioned state/federal differences."
There was no need to. Notice that you never asked for that distinction, at any point. Obviously you didn't see the need, either.
"... If you don't mind, I'll use YOUR excuse: "human nature". Unless you think human nature won't affect in a constant proportion to the population."
What the hell are you babbling about?
"Since when have you been talking about federal?"
Since the start. When was the discussion of polygamy on a state level? Never? Then how do you imagine it was supposed to be comparable in the first place?
" ... Do federal laws over-rule state laws regarding abortion? No, they don't. States get to choose what they want to do."
Federal laws always trump state law. What exactly are you saying is supposed to happen here? It's ruled unconstitutional to discriminate against gay couples, but states are going to be able to ban those marriages anyway? Why would anyone do that, knowing the SCOTUS would strike them down in an instant? Is there some range of gay marriage that's supposed to apply, like there is for abortion? Please clarify.
"... You have never separated the two."
DeleteI never needed to. Besides that, even if there was some clarification needed (and there wasn't), then such clarification has now been provided. Since you have absolutely nothing to suggest, much less prove, that I meant an individual state, your argument is still null and void.
"YOU LIED or YOU ARE WRONG, which is it?"
Neither, because I wasn't talking about individual states.
"Or, I'll give you one more option: show where you separated federal from state before I mentioned state/federal differences."
There was no need to. Notice that you never asked for that distinction, at any point. Obviously you didn't see the need, either.
"... If you don't mind, I'll use YOUR excuse: "human nature". Unless you think human nature won't affect in a constant proportion to the population."
What the hell are you babbling about?
"Since when have you been talking about federal?"
Since the start. When was the discussion of polygamy on a state level? Never? Then how do you imagine it was supposed to be comparable in the first place?
" ... Do federal laws over-rule state laws regarding abortion? No, they don't. States get to choose what they want to do."
Federal laws always trump state law. What exactly are you saying is supposed to happen here? It's ruled unconstitutional to discriminate against gay couples, but states are going to be able to ban those marriages anyway? Why would anyone do that, knowing the SCOTUS would strike them down in an instant? Is there some range of gay marriage that's supposed to apply, like there is for abortion? Please clarify.
"Why would anyone do that, knowing the SCOTUS would strike them down in an instant?" ... You mean why would anyone spend so much money and waste so much time in the court system (clogging) to get something that is so obviously illegal? Why would they do that if it is illegal to discriminate against sexually perverted choices you make? Has gay marriage become legal, yet, federally? Then you have nothing to stand on in that aspect of the argument. Because the Supreme Court has NOT struck down any illegality of gay marriage federally yet. It is STILL illegal. So, it isn't so obvious, even to the nations most educated minds (SCOTUS).
DeleteAnd, as expected, you couldn't answer the question sufficiently.
"... You mean why would anyone spend so much money and waste so much time in the court system (clogging) to get something that is so obviously illegal?"
DeleteNo, that's not what I mean at all. And changing the law is not "illegal". Perhaps you meant to say "unconstitutional"? Not that it could possibly be argued that it is, but at least it would make a little more sense.
"Why would they do that if it is illegal to discriminate against sexually perverted choices you make?"
Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what that mess is supposed to mean.
"Has gay marriage become legal, yet, federally? Then you have nothing to stand on in that aspect of the argument."
I didn't say it was federally legal. The question involved what would happen if it was.
"And, as expected, you couldn't answer the question sufficiently."
What question? And you didn't answer my request for clarification, so you can't very well complain about not getting the answer you want.
"The question involved what would happen if it was." ... That would make it a hypothetical? In which case (by your standards) is not quantifiable? Therefor a straw-man argument? Just like your hypothetical about polygamy. Right?
Delete"... That would make it a hypothetical?"
DeleteYes.
"In which case (by your standards) is not quantifiable?"
By your standards, too, since you said the same thing. And where, specifically, did I ask you to give me a number regarding this?
"Therefor [sic] a straw-man argument?"
No, that's not what defines a "straw man" argument. Why don't you look it up, so you actually know what the term means, instead of throwing it out randomly like a small child who's just heard a new word?
"Just like your hypothetical about polygamy."
No, because that wasn't misrepresenting your views (straw man), and I never claimed it had to be quantified in order for the premise to be valid.
So, no, not "right". Hope you can do better next try.
"By your standards, too, since you said the same thing." ... Then, how can you say that gay marriage wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything if it is legalized? And, how can you say the courts won't be tied up with cases from gay marriage if legalized? Seems to me that it is a similar situation as would be for polygamy.
Delete"... Then, how can you say that gay marriage wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything if it is legalized?"
DeleteWhen did I say that? I'm saying the costs are the same as they would be for straight marriage. Same for court time. Since I don't oppose straight marriage, and I don't see any legal difference between the two, the costs are acceptable.
"Seems to me that it is a similar situation as would be for polygamy."
You may actually think that, but you also claimed that coveting is against the law. It seems to me you'll say literally anything as long as it allows you to cling desperately to your moronic arguments. We've been through this already. Polygamy would give rights and benefits to any number of spouses. Note the italics. That's a multiplication (not division, like your pension example) of funds paid out based on whoever anyone who gets those benefits would want to add on to their list of spouses. That's not remotely similar to two consenting adults getting married.
Yet again, you refuse to explain how you can set up an arbitrary line of cost here. If everyone entered straight marriages, would you be whining about the costs? Oh, that's right. You don't care about costs. Well, I don't care about costs of two consenting adults getting married, because people should be able to do that. So, that should be all that needs to be said about your bullshit regarding the costs of gay marriage.
Anything else?
"I'm saying the costs are the same as they would be for straight marriage. Same for court time." .... That can't be. According to your standards "hypotheticals" are not quantifiable. That means you cannot say it will OR will not cost anything. Since you can't bring an actual cost for the "hypothetical" of polygamy, then you certainly can't say there IS a cost for the "hypothetical" gay marriage. If one "hypothetical" can have costs assigned to it, then the other can, also.
DeleteSo, if you're done assigning costs to gay marriage, please bring the anticipated costs for polygamy that YOU say will be present. Or just admit that costs have nothing to do with it.
"(not division, like your pension example)" ... Like I said, you (and I) don't know the specifics of what is happening. My point was that "multiple" spouses are benefitting. If you can say with absolution that they are dividing and not something else, please feel free to do that. I know the man involved, so I'll know if you snoop into his business. Good luck.
" If everyone entered straight marriages, would you be whining about the costs?" ... No, I wouldn't. Are you a little confused? I think so, because it is YOU who has the concern over costs within marriages. Of course you aren't worried about just any marriage, you are only concerned with the minor costs of some obscure marriage condition that would happen so few times that any cost you bring would be miniscule compared to the immense cost of both straight marriages and gay marriages (both of which you support). Why do you continue to use "cost" as a reason for your opposition to one type of marriage rights when the cost of the ones you support easily out-cost your supposed cost that polygamy would be.
"That can't be. According to your standards "hypotheticals" are not quantifiable. That means you cannot say it will OR will not cost anything."
DeleteExcept we already have straight marriage, with costs that are quantified. Would you like to explain why there would be more costs for gay marriage on average than straight marriage? That would seem to require some sort of judgment about gay people, and you surely don't want to prove yourself a bigot, now do you?
"... Like I said, you (and I) don't know the specifics of what is happening. My point was that "multiple" spouses are benefitting [sic]."
He could just as easily pay multiple women a share of his pension. Divorce doesn't change a damn thing there. There's no extra money being allotted, until you prove otherwise. And even then, so what? That would be ridiculous, so I would oppose that loophole anyway. It wouldn't force me to change my views on anything else.
"If you can say with absolution that they are dividing and not something else, please feel free to do that. I know the man involved, so I'll know if you snoop into his business."
It's your argument, so I have no obligation whatsoever to research the matter. Further, rules are rules. It's not like I have to know who you're talking about personally to find out if pensions are increased for the sake of divorced spouses. Did you think about what you wrote at all? I don't even know who you are, how the hell would I know who this mythical associate is? How would I "snoop into his business"? You need medication, in all seriousness.
"I think so, because it is YOU who has the concern over costs within marriages."
Which is what I said. And yet, you admit that you wouldn't complain about the "new" costs of more straight marriages, so your criticism of me doesn't even make sense on your own level.
"Of course you aren't worried about just any marriage, you are only concerned with the minor costs of some obscure marriage condition that would happen so few times that any cost you bring would be miniscule compared to the immense cost of both straight marriages and gay marriages (both of which you support)."
You keep asserting that polygamy would be exceptionally rare, but you never explain why you believe that. I wonder why...
"Would you like to explain why there would be more costs for gay marriage on average than straight marriage?" ... I can't (and neither can you). Gay marriage is a hypothetical. Therefore no costs can be factored in. That is YOUR standard, not mine.
Delete"It's your argument, so I have no obligation whatsoever to research the matter." ... You seem to have no problem telling me what their situation is (as if you have intimate knowledge of it), why can't you address the concern?
"You keep asserting that polygamy would be exceptionally rare, but you never explain why you believe that. I wonder why..." ... Because nobody is interested in that kind of life. Are you going to become a Mormon just to take advantage of polygamy? Neither am I and neither is the rest of the nation. That alone proves your fear of polygamy is based on unrealistic and unfounded fear of "cost" by a sexual perversion and the lifestyle they CHOOSE to live.
"Gay marriage is a hypothetical. Therefore no costs can be factored in. That is YOUR standard, not mine."
DeleteNo, that's not my standard. For one thing, gay marriage is legal in some states. If it's more costly on average, you should be able to show that. Also, as noted, straight marriage serves as a guide for the cost. So, unless you have some reason to claim a difference, then that guide serves the purpose. It's not comparable to a situation where any number of people could take on any number of spouses. There's no parallel to that.
"... You seem to have no problem telling me what their situation is (as if you have intimate knowledge of it), why can't you address the concern?"
I'm going off of what you said. And I did address the "concern". Again, a pension being divided up is irrelevant. He could pay that money out of his own pocket of his own will. That's obviously not the same as benefits being multiplied for additional spouses, so it's not even remotely in the same ballpark as anything I'm concerned about. What more could you possibly have to say on the subject, seriously?
"... Because nobody is interested in that kind of life."
Yet again, I'm not talking about people genuinely interested in polyamory. I'm talking about people who will engage in polygamy because they will gain from it. Are you going to claim "nobody" is interested in making more money? Getting free health care? By all means, explain why you believe that.
"Are you going to become a Mormon just to take advantage of polygamy?"
Polygamy has been illegal within the church for something like a hundred and twenty years. You're a bit behind the times.
"I'm talking about people who will engage in polygamy because they will gain from it." ... That is just great. Now you change your entire stance to clarify that you only oppose people who would use polygamy to scam the system. You say you really like the sexual perversion of polygamy?
DeleteWell, I got news for you bub, you are even MORE of a bigot now that you will refuse to support marriage rights for consenting adults based on a FEAR that 2 or 3 people will scam the government.
"You're a bit behind the times." ... That happens when you get old. At least I can comprehend what I read and not change my stances to find excuses for what I've said.
"Now you change your entire stance to clarify that you only oppose people who would use polygamy to scam the system."
DeleteIt's not a change. It's what I've been talking about the whole time. Go find where I said anything against polyamorous people, and then get back to me.
"You say you really like the sexual perversion of polygamy?"
Did I say that?
"Well, I got news for you bub, you are even MORE of a bigot now that you will refuse to support marriage rights for consenting adults based on a FEAR that 2 or 3 people will scam the government."
So now in the entire pool of people who get benefits from being married, two or three people are going to take advantage of free money and health care. Sure.
"... That happens when you get old."
If you're so old that you can't remember something like that, you shouldn't be posting.
"At least I can comprehend what I read and not change my stances to find excuses for what I've said."
Really?:"... If this blog site is YOUR personal business operation, then you got me. Otherwise, there is NOTHING that says I am referring to you 'posting' on this site as a crime."
No, no excuses there, nor did you change your stance. Right?
"So now in the entire pool of people who get benefits from being married, two or three people are going to take advantage of free money and health care." ... In your scenario, how many will take advantage? I've only asked you that 100 times. Do you think you'll answer it now? Me neither.
Delete"If you're so old that you can't remember something like that, you shouldn't be posting." ... Sorry, I don't follow false religions as closely as you do. But, you ARE the one who fears them getting marriage rights because 2 or 3 people MAY scam the system.
"No, no excuses there, nor did you change your stance. Right?" ... That's right. Did you find something where I said a word OTHER than BUSINESS? Don't worry, atheists aren't known for their consistency or honesty. Bring what you think you got.
"... In your scenario, how many will take advantage? I've only asked you that 100 times. Do you think you'll answer it now? Me neither."
DeleteDid you forget, yet again, you admitted it wasn't quantifiable?
"... Sorry, I don't follow false religions as closely as you do."
Oh, so you didn't forget, you were just ignorant of what you were talking about. Got it.
"But, you ARE the one who fears them getting marriage rights because 2 or 3 people MAY scam the system."
Repeating the number doesn't make it any less ludicrous.
"... That's right. Did you find something where I said a word OTHER than BUSINESS?"
Can you explain why you would have to use some other word? Probably not.
"Repeating the number doesn't make it any less ludicrous." ... What do you mean "ludicrous"? It can't be any more ludicrous than your refusal to even bring a possible number. At least I have a realistic number, unlike your ideal that everyone will become polygamists just to scam the system. YOU said that will happen because of "human nature". You think every person is a crook (except you of course) and human nature proves it. THAT is ludicrous!
Delete"Do you think you'll answer it now? Me neither." ... I called that one. L
"... What do you mean "ludicrous"? It can't be any more ludicrous than your refusal to even bring a possible number."
DeleteOh, really? Because you said yourself it wasn't quantifiable.
"At least I have a realistic number, unlike your ideal that everyone will become polygamists just to scam the system."
I suggested "everyone" will become polygamists? Citation, please.
"YOU said that will happen because of "human nature"."
Lie, plain and simple. I never said nor suggested that human nature would cause everyone to do anything, ever.
"... I called that one. L"
What a brilliant prediction. You say why I don't have to answer a question, then you ask that same question over and over again, predicting I won't answer it. Great job. And that's sarcasm, by the way.
"Oh, really? Because you said yourself it wasn't quantifiable." ... No. I don't see that. Can you bring some proof of that?
Delete"I suggested "everyone" will become polygamists? Citation, please." ... Jeez, you MUST be old, your memory is going fast. Well, that can excuse your behavior to a point, but only to a point. It WAS YOU who said that "human nature" will cause people to scam the government, right? It WAS YOU who said ALL are covered by "human nature", right?
"... No. I don't see that. Can you bring some proof of that?"
DeleteYou (caps yours):"... That is exactly right. There is NO WAY TO QUANTIFY THOSE RESULTS" http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-clever-sounds-like-to-stupid-person.html?showComment=1365341956792#c4072093674299943117
"It WAS YOU who said that "human nature" will cause people to scam the government, right? It WAS YOU who said ALL are covered by "human nature", right?"
Now show where I said everyone is affected by human nature the same way, yielding identical results. Your stupidity is not my responsibility.
"Your stupidity is not my responsibility." ... No, but yours is.
DeleteI didn't say there is no way to quantify those results. I said you can't quantify shit you make up. My God, you are a complete nincompoop. You will lie and take shit out of context just to keep telling yourself you think you know what is going on.
"Now show where I said everyone is affected by human nature the same way, yielding identical results." ... You never included "yielding the same results", before. So, get your shit together before you start whining about things you think were said.
"I said you can't quantify shit you make up."
DeleteMoron, you've been whining about the hypothetical nature of the subject the entire time. How that is supposed to be a distinction in your favor is a mystery. In fact, let's test that; explain how it could possibly be quantified. By what possible standards could the number of people scamming the system be estimated? I eagerly anticipate your failure to answer the question.
"... You never included "yielding the same results", before."
Sorry, anyone over the age of six should not need that explained to them. I apologize for overestimating your capacity. But now, however, it's been explained to you, so you can let that particular idiocy go.
"By what possible standards could the number of people scamming the system be estimated?" ... It seems that if you're just going to make shit up for your reason to oppose legal polygamy, then you can make up the percentage of people who will scam the system. Maybe you could use your "human nature" model as a guide. YOU are the one who said "human nature" would cause those people to scam. Finish your hypothetical using your own parameters.
Delete"It seems that if you're just going to make shit up for your reason to oppose legal polygamy, then you can make up the percentage of people who will scam the system."
DeleteBut I'm not making up some percentage, moron, no matter how many times you've tried to bait me into doing exactly that. You can't explain how it isn't a reasonable conclusion that people will take advantage of free money. Instead, you insist that I come up with a number, without being able to explain not only why it's necessary, but how it would be possible at all. You whine about the use of the phrase "human nature" because it's such an obvious and devastating response to your pretense that people won't take advantage of such an opportunity.
You have nothing. Continue to demonstrate that as long as your wounded ego prompts you to.
"You can't explain how it isn't a reasonable conclusion that people will take advantage of free money." ... They will not take advantage of something they have not earned. People are not thieves at heart. As much as your negative outlook on life is, that just isn't true. So, when you make shit like that up, then you need to fully explain your fear of people. Bring your total costs or admit there will be none. Which equates to you being a bigot towards people who choose a sexual deviance different than the one you have chosen.
DeleteNow, when you get done throwing words out there (like "human nature") why don't you go back and fully explain how your fear of polygamy will turn out. How many people will become criminals because of your "human nature" model? All of them? Some of them? Few of them? Bring a hypothetical to complete your hypothetical. Or just shut you pie hole when all you do is make shit up and claim it is fact.
I have everything in this conversation. It is you who is bringing nothing but lies and innuendo.
"... They will not take advantage of something they have not earned. People are not thieves at heart. As much as your negative outlook on life is, that just isn't true."
DeleteThen why is there fraud going on with any number of other programs currently? Or are you going to deny that, as well?
"How many people will become criminals because of your "human nature" model?"
It's not quantifiable, by your own admission.
"Bring a hypothetical to complete your hypothetical. Or just shut you pie hole when all you do is make shit up and claim it is fact."
When did I claim anything was fact? We're talking about a hypothetical scenario. I'm the one who has to keep reminding you of that, so I'm not the one blurring the lines between fantasy and reality here.
"It is you who is bringing nothing but lies and innuendo."
What "lies and innuendo" can you prove regarding a hypothetical scenario?
"It's not quantifiable, by your own admission." ... So you can say that 'some' will scam the government, you just can't say how many? Is that correct? But, you keep using an amount to say 'some' will scam the government. You keep providing a quantifiable amount of people who will scam the government for all the other programs, but can't for the one program you oppose while using the reasoning of "not quantifiable". How does that circular logic work?
Delete"... So you can say that 'some' will scam the government, you just can't say how many? Is that correct?"
DeleteYes. After however long of dealing with this discussion, you've finally grasped the most basic of concepts.
"You keep providing a quantifiable amount of people who will scam the government for all the other programs, but can't for the one program you oppose while using the reasoning of "not quantifiable"."
First off, what amount did I provide (as opposed to accepting)? And the difference would be that polygamy is a hypothetical situation with no usable parallel to use as a guideline.
Did you notice how that last sentence had two parts? Concentrate really, really hard, so you don't get confused by that. Because I have a distinct feeling if I don't point it out, you'll cite gay marriage because it's not hypothetical (being legal in some states) over and over no matter how many times I point you to "no usable parallel". Let's avoid that, shall we? Or at least make you look like even more of an ass if you're compelled to try it.
"How does that circular logic work?"
Even by your own argument, that's not "circular logic". For the love of all you consider holy, do some reading on logic at some point in your life.
"what amount did I provide?" ... You said there IS fraud going on. By who? If you can't say by who then you can't say it is happening. So, who is committing that fraud? And, will these be the same people who scam through polygamy? Or will there be a new batch of criminals created if polygamy marriage rights are OK'd? Your paranoia is astounding.
Delete"For the love of all you consider holy, do some reading on logic at some point in your life." ... You mean you want me to leave this site? Because there isn't any LOGIC happening from the posters/authors here. IF you seriously are concerned about someone using logic, then perhaps you should try it yourself, first.
"... You said there IS fraud going on. By who? If you can't say by who then you can't say it is happening."
DeleteYou want names and addresses, or you're going to dictate that people don't commit fraud? Just want to be clear on precisely how absurd your argument is now.
"And, will these be the same people who scam through polygamy?"
How the hell would anyone know? What stupid questions you ask.
"Your paranoia is astounding."
Is it just me? Because it seems that with the number of regulations, safeguards and the like regarding prevention of fraud, there must be a lot of other astoundingly paranoid people out there. Or, more likely, innumerable ways of committing fraud have been demonstrated, which is why there are so many laws and so much red tape for everything.
"... You mean you want me to leave this site? Because there isn't any LOGIC happening from the posters/authors here."
You'd actually be able to demonstrate that it was true and you knew anything about logic. Also, you're one of the posters here, so your comment included yourself. Moron.
"You want names and addresses, or you're going to dictate that people don't commit fraud?" ... Obviously, nobody is scamming the government since you can't say how many may do it.
Delete"How the hell would anyone know?" ... And how the hell do you know people will scam the system through legal polygamy? It's a stupid reason you give to oppose marriage rights for consenting adults that causes no harm to anyone.
"Is it just me? Because it seems that with the number of regulations, safeguards and the like regarding prevention of fraud, there must be a lot of other astoundingly paranoid people out there." ... YES, it is just you. All those regulations/safeguards and the like will prevent ANY scamming through polygamy, and yet you use that as your only reason to oppose it. You ARE the paranoid one, that's for sure.
"Obviously, nobody is scamming the government since you can't say how many may do it."
DeleteSo your claim is that nobody scams the government. There's no fraud, according to you. That's really the argument you're going with? And you may not have noticed this, but you said that nobody is committing a crime now because I can't say how many may do it in the future. That is beyond logically bankrupt. It makes no sense whatsoever. Does that need to be explained further?
"... And how the hell do you know people will scam the system through legal polygamy?"
Because, since people commit fraud now, there's absolutely no rational way to conclude that people won't take advantage of an obvious avenue to get free money.
"All those regulations/safeguards and the like will prevent ANY scamming through polygamy, and yet you use that as your only reason to oppose it."
Then you believe that the people who created all the regulations and red tape are also paranoid? You have to, because you don't believe people have it in their hearts to take something they haven't earned. And if you think it's the regulations that are on your side, what happened before the regulations were there? People didn't take advantage of that opportunity, but the laws were created anyway? Then the lawmakers were paranoid. And if people did take advantage, then people must have it in their nature to take what they haven't earned. Plus, since you don't believe polygamy has to be limited, your comment about safeguards preventing scamming don't apply. Because there would be no safeguards, and no need for any.
Oh, what a tangled web you weave...
"There's no fraud, according to you. That's really the argument you're going with?" ... It ain't no different than your 'so many will scam the system that our government will fail' argument. God, what a wiener you are. As in Michael Savage; you're just a wiener.
Delete"Because, since people commit fraud now, there's absolutely no rational way to conclude that people won't take advantage of an obvious avenue to get free money." .... What "free money"?!?? There isn't any "free money" with all the regulations and controls. Geez, you are paranoid! Is that what makes you such the bigot?
"Then you believe that the people who created all the regulations and red tape are also paranoid?" ... No, why would I think that?
"... It ain't no different than your 'so many will scam the system that our government will fail' argument."
DeleteIt's wildly different. You're stating an absolute, that nobody will scam the system. Saying that some or many people will is not the same at all, because that's to be expected. It would be comparable if I said everyone would scam the system, which I didn't.
".... What "free money"?!?? There isn't any "free money" with all the regulations and controls."
What regulations and controls have you proposed for polygamy? You said you didn't see any need to limit it.
"... No, why would I think that?"
If people are so pure of heart, why would we need the regulations and red tape at all? Those who would think that we do would obviously be paranoid, by your argument.
What "free money"? Please answer the question.
Delete"It's wildly different." ... Not different in any way and you can't show how it is since you can't show that people actually will scam the system. Your hypothetical is based on the FEAR that they will. And based on your unrealistic "human nature" model that you say will cause so many to scam the government that the government will fail. That is serious paranoia for ya. Let me guess, you're one of those type of people who wear tin-foil for hats and on their clothing? No need to answer that question, I already have that answer figured out.
"Those who would think that we do would obviously be paranoid, by your argument." ... Putting words in my mouth again? Why don't you comment on things that are actually said and not shit that you make up in your mind?
"What "free money"?"
DeleteGovernment benefits, as has been explained to you multiple times. Now, explain what regulations and controls you were talking about.
"... Not different in any way and you can't show how it is since you can't show that people actually will scam the system."
I have shown how it's different. It's absurd to claim that nobody will take advantage of a situation. The opposing notion would be that some people will take advantage. Your position is extreme. Mine is not.
"And based on your unrealistic "human nature" model that you say will cause so many to scam the government that the government will fail."
And I said that where, precisely?
"... Putting words in my mouth again?"
No, I'm going off of what you said. Please answer the question:"If people are so pure of heart, why would we need the regulations and red tape at all?"
Also, I've never put words in your mouth, so there's no "again". Nice try.
"Now, explain what regulations and controls you were talking about." ... The same ones you were talking about when you brought that into the discussion. So, you can answer your own question with the regulations that you are referring to.
Delete"It's absurd to claim that nobody will take advantage of a situation." ... What is really absurd is when someone claims there will be so many scamming the government that it could fail because of it. So, what do you think about the possibility of finding an agreed upon potential that will fulfill your fear of polygamy costing the government so much that it could fail.
" Please answer the question:"If people are so pure of heart, why would we need the regulations and red tape at all?" " ... Because only a small percentage of people are true Christians, the rest will treat morals like you do ... on a sliding scale depending on how you feel about any given situation. I would figure about half of the non-Christians would look into the possibility of scamming the government. And of that half probably only half will actually attempt it. Then you got to factor in that an even smaller number of those folks will seek polygamy as the vehicle to use while scamming. That means about 3-6% of the eligible population may scam the government if polygamy is ever legalized. Which is by far an acceptable number after factoring in the government will close any loophole caused by any legalized polygamy. That means your fear of legalized polygamy costing the government so much money is irrational and conspiratorial, making your reasoning very bigoted and stupid. Especially considering that legalized gay marriage is STILL costing the government a fortune in lawyers and court time and yet you support that.
"Also, I've never put words in your mouth, so there's no "again". " ... Here's what you said: "Those who would think that we do would obviously be paranoid, by your argument."
Now, at what point did I make an argument that "those who think that we do" are obviously paranoid. I have said YOU are paranoid for thinking that way, but I'm pretty sure I haven't clumped any other people into the same mold as you. Well, maybe that 3-6%.
"... The same ones you were talking about when you brought that into the discussion."
DeleteThere are regulations for a hypothetical scenario? You were talking about polygamy, remember?
"... What is really absurd is when someone claims there will be so many scamming the government that it could fail because of it."
Again, where did I claim that?
"... Because only a small percentage of people are true Christians, the rest will treat morals like you do ..."
What do you estimate that percentage to be?
"Which is by far an acceptable number after factoring in the government will close any loophole caused by any legalized polygamy."
Magical thinking. How do you expect that to happen? And are you saying that polygamy now has to be limited, in your view?
"Now, at what point did I make an argument that "those who think that we do" are obviously paranoid. I have said YOU are paranoid for thinking that way, but I'm pretty sure I haven't clumped any other people into the same mold as you."
So your argument is that you can reasonably claim that I'm paranoid for saying regulations are needed, but other people who propose and establish regulations aren't paranoid. Brilliant work there, jackass. How is that supposed to work, exactly?
"Again, where did I claim that?" ... In every statement you've made to excuse your bigoted opposition to polygamy since I shot down your "consenting adults" ect. arguments.
Delete"What do you estimate that percentage to be?" ... What does it matter, I've done the math for the rest of you. The final number is there for you to see. Are you going to discuss that? Especially in relation to your claim that so many people will scam the government through polygamy that it could cost us a fortune.
"How is that supposed to work, exactly?" ... And, again, he's making shit up in order to whine about something ... anything.
"Government benefits, as has been explained to you multiple times." ... Give a dollar figure. Just generically saying "benefits" is really quite weak, even from you. Give an amount that is realistic to your claims. Or, skirt the issue again and again and again. Your choice.
"I have an understanding of how choice works, what merits are in the determinism argument and the ability to think about thing on just a slightly deeper level than you appear capable of." .... Says the "huge D&D nerd" about stupidity.
ReplyDelete"Conservatives are fairly easy to impress, as long as what they're been fed comes from a Conservative." ... Says the "huge D&D nerd" about stupidity.
DeleteWrong copy/paste action happening earlier.