[Red]

-an idiot- Government should not be involved in marriage period. It is a religious issue, and in every way rights are equal for all. Two gay men deserve the same equality in benefits, and the state governments should grant civil unions to all looking to attain them, gay or strait. But actualy marriage is a religious thing, and if they choose to not mary gya then so be it, all it would really be is a piece of paper between a couple and that church and god, not benefits politically by government.
-an idiot- Exactly, -blank-, but Civil Unions should be the binding between 2 individuals, and everyone deserves that equally whether your gay or strait. Marriage IS a religious thing tho, and government got involved. Marriage should be nothing more than two people joining together as one beofre god through there church for personal belief reasons, and the church can marry whomever they want.

Red -an idiot- we get it anything the government touches is awful, just drop it already before your hypocrisy becomes even more laughable than it already is

-an idiot- As for you red, actually present an argument and ill kick your ass just like the last argument we had, dude your out of your league.

Red your last argument was riddled with fallacies and was basically you repeatedly showing your own ignorance in regards to how the constitution works, just sayin'

Red (THIS POST BELOW was meant to bait him, I know it's not refuting what he said)
Also, -an idiot-, it does not matter what marriage is traditionally. Which it still isn't religious. You're arguing semantics again. Literally that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "THEY DID NOT GET MARRIED BACK THEN SO THEREFORE MARRIAGE ...IS RELIGIOUS, SO LET'S CALL MARRIAGE SOMETHING ELSE", jesus fucking christ you make NO SENSE. Do you read what you write?

And there's a REASON why civil unions aren't good enough for gays. You do realize this, don't you? It's the simple fact that all benefits are written as such as to only applied to MARRIED PEOPLE. That's why it's important that gays are allowed to be married. Separate but "equal" doesn't work, stop living in the fifties. Until we give gay couples the right to married they will be loopholed out of being given the benefits THEY DESERVE as tax paying citizens.

Red It's like talking to a five year old who parrots whatever he hears, my god.

-an idiot-
You are an idiot!! I am for eliminating all of the benefits that come with MARRIAGE and getting the government out completely. In turn EVERYONE, VERY MUCH EQUALLY, would get the exact same fucking rights, and it would be better than it is n...ow. A private church has the choice and can marry whomever the hell they want. If they dont want to marry gays then they dont have too. The government should not be involved at all. Fallacies?? Lol you make me laugh. You got destroyed. Even Daniel came around to say he had to think a little more about what I was saying and take it into consideration. So before you ignorantly insult me and start talking about the fifties, really look at what is being said. Its not separate, theyd all be equal, with all the same rights. Read the constitution, the government has no authority, and it is not there business to be involved whatsoever in marriage. They are supposed to be miniscule and not interfere with your private life at all. You should get to tknow the constitution a little before you start shouting and insulting ignorant opinions. Its not the fucntion of our federal government.

Red (actual debating)
Still clinging to this absolute, unregulated capitalism huh? Enjoy monopolies, shitty products and the exploitation of working class for the top 1%.

But onto your points. I'm an idiot? Sir, I do protest. Your idea seems fine in theory. But i...s it even necessary? What's wrong with marriage? You said it yourself. People didn't get "married" 4,000 years ago. It isn't religious. The current terminology is FINE. Marriage does not belong to any one religion, nor is it or has ever been "sacred". Now that I've stated that, take into consideration the fact that do you know how massive and enormous the amount of policies you would have to change just so we could have "civil unions" instead of "marriages"?

Corporations by and large have shown they'll stop at nothing to maximize profits, and if this means exploiting loopholes to not provide a couple in a "civil union" the benefits that they deserve, then they will. That's the fucking issue in the first place. The gay couples are being denied benefits they deserve, not by the government only, but by CORPORATIONS. This is why it is important that they are allowed to have "marriage". Get your head out of your ass and stop trying to change a perfectly good term with NO REAL religious significance to something else. It's inconvenient, totally unnecessary, and not really feasible in the first place.

Why I called you a hypocrite in the first place is your stance on this entire thing in the first place. I guess it's SLIGHTLY less hypocritical what with your current stance on "Government shouldn't do anything ever", but it's hypocritical nonetheless. You go on a tangent about how AN AMENDMENT to the constitution, a document meant to be changed for the better with the years, is "unconstitutional" even though it SUPERSEDES the constitution as it is an amendment. I still don't understand how you can't figure that one out. While, on the other hand, a judge, fulfilling his duty as such, interprets a law to be unconstitutional as its very foundation is based on religious biases, which have no place in the legal system. Yet HIS decision is unconstitutional? Don't bring me that "OH THE PUBLIC VOTED FOR IT" bullshit, as you're always bleating on, "we're a Republic, not a Democracy." Our public vote does not mean much in the face of our judicial system and the document you seem to have a fetish-like attraction to, despite missing the entire point of it, it seems.

You seem to like Thomas Jefferson, -an idiot-. Do you even know he called for a new constitutional convention every few decades? Yet you claim this document should be the end-all infallible word of God, and quote him to prove it so. The irony is hilarious, frankly.

-an idiot-
Lol, I wish I had the time to adress every thing you just posted, but the fact is meet me on monday at school and I will have a face to face debate debate with you so you can get schooled lol. the fact that you just quoted me by saying "the... government shouldnt do anything ever" is a reason why you cant even be taken seriously. That is not at all what I believe, and never have I said that. SO thanks for making your self look like a fucking idiot.

second, you just bashed capitalism and that is a whole different debate in which i would once again kick your ass at. You have none of the numbers, no none of the facts, and dont realize our economy is micromanaged and has so much government involved right now, which has caused all the problems. Ever heard of the federal reserve? im guessing not, ever heard of fannie or freddie? im guessing not. Ever heard of the government actually creating monopolies in not only the medical industry but also in the banking? They have taken control and given contracts to only select few of companies, whiping out all competetition and driving up prices. You jackass. When you look at history, the most distinct seperation of weath between the poor and the rich was in Communist Russia. They had absolute government control. Had one of the poorest classes when compaired to that top 1 percent which was richer than hell. Fact is, the difference was greater than ever, and 10 fold what our numbers are here. The government is single handedly destroying the middle class with regulations and propping up fialed buisneses. Let alone robbing them blinnd of 50 percent of their wealth to be payed to the government, and getting them hooked on 108 trillion dollars worth of UNFUNDED GOVERNMENT LIABILITIES (medicaire, medicaid, social security, prescription drug). Dude dont even begin that argument.

third. Onto gay marriage. It would literally be less than a 20 page bill to change it dumbass, not endless as you decribed. Government back out of marriage, IT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO BE THERE, issues not delegated to the government through the constitution is given soley to the states. Check out the 10th ammendment. With state civil unions any couple with that union would be a couple and get those benefits. States doing buisness in that state would therefor have to follow state law and grant those benefits. If not it would be violating state law, and they would be prosecuted. It is a state function, not a federal issue, and the govoernment has no right to be involved in marriage.

And finally, the government creates the loopholes you idiot. A monopoly is almost impossible with free markets. Bet you didnt know that the biggest monopolies in history occured in the early 1900's through crude oil and banks. All because the fed created them and financed the creation of these monopolies. Get the facts asshole. Free market creates better quality and lower prices through competition and that a fact. Government does not have what it doesnt illegally take from another person, and therefor can not spread the wealth, regulate a personal PRIVATE BUISNESS!!!See More
49 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
#
-an idiot- Or get involved in marriage.

discuss this idiot. i don't even feel like bothering with that last post because of how far he has his head up his own ass. Governments create monopolies? REALLY?

This post has been edited by Red: 14 August 2010 - 12:17 AM

["That Other Guy"]

I stopped reading at "strait"

[???????]

I didn't bother reading the conversation since the topic of gay marriage is something I'm really sick of hearing about. I did read the last sentence, though.

I could've sworn that the government was trying to prevent monopolies from existing...

[Sway]

i just friend requested him

[Red]

oh lawdy. don't expect too much from him, he's just a smug asshole from my school who parrots Glenn Beck and Alex Jones

[Sway]

ahahaha, alex jones?

[Gold_TSG]

What's the tl;dr version?

[Sway]

Gold_TSG, on 13 August 2010 - 09:36 PM, said:

What's the tl;dr version?

Red, on 13 August 2010 - 08:18 PM, said:

Glenn Beck and Alex Jones

[Gold_TSG]

Hahaha!

[Red]

Hahaha, yeah, pretty much. He use to be pretty big on New World Order and what not, though I'm not sure if he still is.

[Red]

-an idiot- Lol, honestly I will talk about this in person with either one of you lol. Dont have the time right now to make long comments tho. Maybe later. Basically I am for no government involvment in marriage as they do not have the right or authori...ty. Now civil unions shall be granted to EVERYONE equally, gay or strait, because we all have the same rights. The benefits that come from a civil union will be through the state not the federal government. So it may differ state to state. But one of the biggest benefits is joint income tax, but I am for the eliminations of the IRS and the income tax, so that wouldnt be an issue anymore. Thats why the fed would be completely out of it. Your state benefits would vary on each state and how they vote for what they want. Simple as that. The actual marrige certificate (completely seperate and different than the civil union) would be provided by your church. The marrigae is now only a symbolic thing and a gesture that a couple would make beofre god through a church for there own personal reasons. Other than that it has no real purpose or benefits attached. Now whether that church is Christian, its muslim, athiest, or whatever religion it doesnt matter. The piece of paper is between those people and whatever they may belive that paper is conecting them too ( any religion). That is what I am for, broke it down as simply and as strait forward as I could. Go ahead and comment or ask questions.

slight update in idiocy

[Red]

Honestly I give up on him, don't care if he continues his smug ego, trolling him is losing the fun for the simple fact that he's completely up his own ass. He reminds me of a marxist, really. He keeps going on about how perfect the 'free market' is, even though he doesn't provide any evidence to that fact besides simply stating that nothing bad would ever happen under such a system. Like communism, the idea might look good on paper(even if it really doesn't. ... at all), but ultimately it'll fail, and we know it'll fail.

Oh, though it's still pretty hilarious that in one of his debates he took the time to write out "WE'RE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!! YOU'VE BEEN BRAINWASHED!!! RONPAUL 2012"(not paraphrasing here).

[???????]

Uh, isn't the US's economy a free market economy? Also, I thought marxism was closer to communism than the free market system...

Summarize the conversation, covering the key points. I honestly don't feel like reading all that.

[Red]

I meant Marx, that communism looked really good on paper. Except it was open to abuse by the greedy, and well, you got Stalin. He's talking about an entirely free market economy, i.e. no government intervention. This has never been done, at least completely. Except this doesn't look good on paper either. It relies on a "invisible hand" that'll supposedly make sure our economy doesn't fall. He says that do to the competition between businesses that none of the businesses would take any risks like the ones that helped lead to our recession. However, in reality, what will most likely happen is that a few corporations will survive while most small businesses crash, and eventually these businesses will become monopolies, and as such, inflate prices, not pay decent wages, and produce shitty goods as they are the only ones selling them. And as government will have completely deregulated the corporations, they will have no power to prevent this from happening; like you said, government is trying to STOP monopolies.

but to summarize:

-an idiot-
-Marriage is religious
-Government shouldn't be involved with marriage
-Government shouldn't provide benefit to those married(because he wants to abolish the 16th amendment... which is apparently unconstitutional. hmm. wonder how that works)
-Government should provide civil unions to anyone who wants them...even though they apparently don't do anything since in his plan they wouldn't get benefits from the government

Me
-Marriage is NOT religious, and is a civil right that should be extended to gay couples. Thus far the bills banning gay marriage have been based upon a "moral" and religious bias that has no place in our legal system.
-Government SHOULD be involved with marriage, as it's the same thing as a civil union, except with civil unions, people get screwed out of their benefits
do to loopholes giving these benefits to only married couples and not civil unions, which in effect screws over these gay couples who do not get their benefits
-Changing all instances of "marriage" to "civil union" is unnecessary and inconvenient. There is no problem with the terminology in the first place. All this is is arguing semantics, except by changing all marriages to civil unions you're either forcing corporations and the government to change many many policies regarding married couples, or allowing further exploitation due to the aforementioned loopholes.


Basically his entire stance is pointless and based on the fallacy that marriage belongs to Christians(though he claims it would go for all religions it still doesn't make sense). This isn't accurate at all in history, tradition, nor practice today. Not that it should even matter. Terminology and concepts change over time. Marriage, even if it was a strictly religious thing, which, by all means, it is not and never was, it would not be anymore.

This post has been edited by Red: 14 August 2010 - 06:00 AM

[NiGHTS Noob]

The current crash wasn't caused by risk taking. It was caused by a lack of common sense.

[Red]

Well yeah.

[NiGHTS Noob]

You should attempt to explain to him that without risk taking in the market we wouldn't have cars mass produced for the middle class, home computers, the internet, commercially available phones, video games, refrigeration, company built homes, most tools, television, film, rock, jazz, you get the idea. Because those were all originally created or marketed with no prior knowledge as to whether or not they would be profitable.

He probably won't actually listen though.

[Red]

Did I mention he wrote a shitty book? Yeah me and my friend are gonna pick it a part. If I find anything hilarious enough I'll share.

[???????]

He got a book about this published?

[Red]

It's mostly about how communists are taking over America and New World Order. And no, I think he printed it out himself. ... At like, Kinkos or something.