Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-03-2007, 08:47 PM   #101
FrenchToast
The 1337est
D&A Member
 
FrenchToast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Omagosh Canada.
Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times
First off, that sentence didn't make sense, at least not in English. Please proof-read.

Secondly, I'm all for plural marriage, go for it, as long as it doesn't infringe on women's rights, which is where there are quarrels with it. When women get sold as property, there's the problem, not multiple people marrying.
__________________
James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had' ; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher.
FrenchToast is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-03-2007, 09:14 PM   #102
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchToast
First off, that sentence didn't make sense, at least not in English. Please proof-read.

Secondly, I'm all for plural marriage, go for it, as long as it doesn't infringe on women's rights, which is where there are quarrels with it. When women get sold as property, there's the problem, not multiple people marrying.
I added the word "are" into the question so you'd be able to get it. However, I will rephrase:

Frenchtoast, considering your stance that people who disagree with the idea of gay marraige do you also believe that people like Etzell and IhmhI are ignorant uneducated, who desire to oppress their fellow man, because they do not believe that plural marriage should be legal? (for Etzell and Ihmhi, those are his words, not mine)

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-03-2007, 09:59 PM   #103
qwertyuiop
Voted #1 FF Forum Member
D&A Member
 
qwertyuiop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts Rated Helpful 3 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
I added the word "are" into the question so you'd be able to get it. However, I will rephrase:

Frenchtoast, considering your stance that people who disagree with the idea of gay marraige do you also believe that people like Etzell and IhmhI are ignorant uneducated, who desire to oppress their fellow man, because they do not believe that plural marriage should be legal? (for Etzell and Ihmhi, those are his words, not mine)

Scuzzy
Etzell said he was against plural marriages because the women are not treated well in such marriages, and FT said that he has no problem with plural marriages as long as women are treated equally. Their views are essentially the same. Ihmhi didn't say he had anything against them other than the legal difficulties associated, he would be fine with them being legal if those difficulties could be solved. You're taking their responses as 'I'm against it' rather than 'I'm against it because _______'.

To sum up my post: I take from their responses that Etzell and Ihmhi would be fine with plural marriages if the problems associated with plural marriages were solved, and they can be, and there probably have been succesful plural marriages (although I admit I'm not aware of the legality of much background of plural marriages).
qwertyuiop is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-03-2007, 10:01 PM   #104
Ihmhi
[AE] 0112 Ihmhi *SJB
Wiki Team
Fortress Forever Staff
 
Ihmhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Newark, NJ, United States
Class/Position: A little bit o' everythin'
Gametype: Also a little bit o' everythin'
Affiliations: [AE] Asseater, *SJB Straight Jacket Brigade
Posts Rated Helpful 3 Times
Send a message via AIM to Ihmhi Send a message via MSN to Ihmhi Send a message via Yahoo to Ihmhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
I added the word "are" into the question so you'd be able to get it. However, I will rephrase:

Frenchtoast, considering your stance that people who disagree with the idea of gay marraige do you also believe that people like Etzell and IhmhI are ignorant uneducated, who desire to oppress their fellow man, because they do not believe that plural marriage should be legal? (for Etzell and Ihmhi, those are his words, not mine)

Scuzzy
That's funny, because no where did I say that I did not believe it should be legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihmhi
I just figure that marriage should be a social contract between two consenting adults on the promise of exclusivity from any other marriage contracts.

Male or female, it does not matter.

This leaves out plural marriage, because it is between TWO consenting adults, not three, four, or five.

This leaves out children, because they do not have legal standing to sign a contract involving adults.

This also leaves out animals, because even if they somehow could sign a contract (those crazy monkies, they think they're people), they do not have legal standing equal to humans in our justice system.

As for plural marriages, legally, I think that it would be very difficult to iron out how that would work. What if one guy divorces all three of his wives? How are those ladies going to split a house three ways? (What if the guy gets the house? Yeah, not in America.)

So yeah, legally, it would be hard to work out. However, I do not think it is the government's business to forbid private plural marriages, especially if they are religious in nature.
I said it would be legally difficult to work out plural marriage and that the government should not make any attempts to forbid the privatized version of it.

And actually, I am what many people would call uneducated. I have been kicked out of two high schools for poor attendance and failing marks. (I have, however, gotten my G.E.D. and I am currently saving up money for college.)

This is an argument of escalation, largely on your part. You brought the whole plural marriage thing into this discussion when it really did not need to be here. It is no different than "well soon enough everyone will be marryin' dogs and donkeys and the like!"

Again, I will restate: in my opinion, marriage should be a social contract established between two legal, consenting adults who are sound of mind regardless of the color of their skin, their gender, their ethnic background, their genes, their affinity for turtles and zombie face paint, and any number of things that the government hasn't got an ounce of business bothering with. The only important thing in marriage is love, and there are a lot of people who are the same sex that love each other romantically.

It is an egregious crime that our government, America, land of the free, ignorantly deprives them of the right to enter into the social contract of marriage while there are many other countries in the world (mostly Europe) that have absolutely no problem with it.

Plural marriage is an entirely different matter and is irrelevant to the issue of homosexuals entering into marriage contracts. It is an entirely different discussion that has greater legal difficulties in working out and an idea that will likely not reach fruition until long after homosexual marriage has become the norm.

Wrapping things up, Scuzzy, this is addressed to you. I know you are an all around good guy, although you can get pretty heated in an argument. We all can. Your generation and the one before it, however, did something that a lot of them are regretting. See, they taught their kids all of this "Sharing" and "being fair" crap that you see on Sesame Street and the like. We kinda, ya know, listened to you. Ten, twenty, thirty years later, a whole lot of those people are turning around on the core of those ideals.

Our generation (and the ones after it) are going to fight to let this happen because we know it's right. These people love each other, and there is nothing more right than that.
__________________
Support FF:
Anime: The Thread: Reloaded
The one and only anime thread on these here forums.

Select the pistol, and then, select your horse.
Ihmhi is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-03-2007, 10:43 PM   #105
Innoc
Hitman 2 1 Actual
 
Innoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: "Oscar Mike"
Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO)
Affiliations: Your Mom
Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times
Send a message via ICQ to Innoc Send a message via AIM to Innoc Send a message via MSN to Innoc Send a message via Yahoo to Innoc
Imhi,

FWIW, education and intelligence are not mutually exclusive or strictly dependent on each other.
__________________
Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few.

You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.
Innoc is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-03-2007, 10:58 PM   #106
FrenchToast
The 1337est
D&A Member
 
FrenchToast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Omagosh Canada.
Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times
I'm not gonna bother responding to Scuzzy there, 'cause everyone else did my work for me. So... yeah. Good call.
__________________
James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had' ; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher.
FrenchToast is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-04-2007, 11:12 AM   #107
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihmhi
I said it would be legally difficult to work out plural marriage and that the government should not make any attempts to forbid the privatized version of it.
Hmmm, maybe I don't understand what you said below then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihmhi
This is an argument of escalation, largely on your part. You brought the whole plural marriage thing into this discussion when it really did not need to be here. It is no different than "well soon enough everyone will be marryin' dogs and donkeys and the like!"
For the record, I never stated this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihmhi
Again, I will restate: in my opinion, marriage should be a social contract established between two legal, consenting adults who are sound of mind regardless of the color of their skin, their gender, their ethnic background, their genes, their affinity for turtles and zombie face paint, and any number of things that the government hasn't got an ounce of business bothering with.
See now, this is where it does sound like you are against government sanctioned plural marriage. You've stated above here that marriage should be between two legal consenting adults. Not 3 or 4 or 5, but two. Stating that marriage should be between 2 people and only 2 people sounds a lot like being against plural marriage. If someone says "Marriage should be between two legal consenting adults of the opposite sex" then FT would say those people are ignorant and uneducated. I only wanted to know if the "it's not a difference of opinion it's a because their ignorant" argument would apply to people who wanted marriage limited to 2 people as well as those who want it limited to opposite sex. Something which he has yet to answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihmhi
The only important thing in marriage is love, and there are a lot of people who are the same sex that love each other romantically.
Wrong. Civil marriage isn't about love at all. Religious marriage is about love, honor, commitment. Civil marriage is soley about taxation, asset division, survivorship, and benefit distribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihmhi
Plural marriage is an entirely different matter and is irrelevant to the issue of homosexuals entering into marriage contracts. It is an entirely different discussion that has greater legal difficulties in working out and an idea that will likely not reach fruition until long after homosexual marriage has become the norm.
What's to work out? Instead of dividing up assets by a factor of 2 you divide them up by a factor of the number of people in the marriage. Can two people have a house? No, they have to settle on how to divvy up the value of that house financially. Plural marriage is relevant to this discussion because people are being discriminated against in exactly the same way as you describe gays are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ihmhi
Your generation and the one before it, however, did something that a lot of them are regretting. See, they taught their kids all of this "Sharing" and "being fair" crap that you see on Sesame Street and the like. We kinda, ya know, listened to you. Ten, twenty, thirty years later, a whole lot of those people are turning around on the core of those ideals.
Actually my generation didn't do that, it was the ones after it. God they were idiots.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-04-2007, 03:48 PM   #108
YomMamasHouse
 
YomMamasHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
I also think people should be able to be involved in plural marriages so long as no rights are violated. While I may be unable to see any joy in it, I have no authority/right to stick my hand into the affairs of others, as long as what they are doing only concerns them. If I thought anything else I would be a fascist/asshole.
YomMamasHouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-04-2007, 05:03 PM   #109
Ihmhi
[AE] 0112 Ihmhi *SJB
Wiki Team
Fortress Forever Staff
 
Ihmhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Newark, NJ, United States
Class/Position: A little bit o' everythin'
Gametype: Also a little bit o' everythin'
Affiliations: [AE] Asseater, *SJB Straight Jacket Brigade
Posts Rated Helpful 3 Times
Send a message via AIM to Ihmhi Send a message via MSN to Ihmhi Send a message via Yahoo to Ihmhi
I see what you did there.

I guess it could work, then. Even something as touchy as custody could be divided up between three or four people (just switch off every week!). I suppose the difficulties are no different than dividing a house in two when half of the regular ol heterosexual marriages in this nation fail.

Gotta admit, though, getting plural marriage to fly in the government will be much harder.

I have to admit I made a mistake. I completely forgot about Nixon completely phasing the love agenda out of the government towards the end of his years.
__________________
Support FF:
Anime: The Thread: Reloaded
The one and only anime thread on these here forums.

Select the pistol, and then, select your horse.
Ihmhi is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-04-2007, 05:30 PM   #110
Zencheetah
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
This thread is causing my eyes to bleed.
Zencheetah is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-04-2007, 09:32 PM   #111
zSilver_Fox
IRL Combat Medic
 
zSilver_Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ethanol Land
Class/Position: D Medic
Gametype: Conca Jumping
Affiliations: ^iv
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Yes Scuzzy, I can't love someone outside of a religious based bond. Yup.
__________________
I have a nasopharyngeal and webcam...

First infraction! Flaming!
zSilver_Fox is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-04-2007, 09:42 PM   #112
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox
Yes Scuzzy, I can't love someone outside of a religious based bond. Yup.
What on earth are you talking about?

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-04-2007, 10:38 PM   #113
zSilver_Fox
IRL Combat Medic
 
zSilver_Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ethanol Land
Class/Position: D Medic
Gametype: Conca Jumping
Affiliations: ^iv
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Wrong. Civil marriage isn't about love at all. Religious marriage is about love, honor, commitment. Civil marriage is soley about taxation, asset division, survivorship, and benefit distribution.
__________________
I have a nasopharyngeal and webcam...

First infraction! Flaming!
zSilver_Fox is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-04-2007, 11:06 PM   #114
squeek.
Stuff Do-er
Lua Team
Wiki Team
Fortress Forever Staff
 
squeek.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern California
Class/Position: Rallygun Shooter
Gametype: Conc tag (you just wait)
Affiliations: Mustache Brigade
Posts Rated Helpful 352 Times
Send a message via AIM to squeek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zencheetah
This thread is causing my eyes to bleed.
Honestly. What in the world is going on in here?
squeek. is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-05-2007, 02:01 AM   #115
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox
Yes Scuzzy, I can't love someone outside of a religious based bond. Yup.
You're saying this because I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Wrong. Civil marriage isn't about love at all. Religious marriage is about love, honor, commitment. Civil marriage is soley about taxation, asset division, survivorship, and benefit distribution.
You're logic makes no sense here. I'm stating the different between two types of marriage, neither of which has anything to do with the definition of love.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-05-2007, 02:13 AM   #116
zSilver_Fox
IRL Combat Medic
 
zSilver_Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ethanol Land
Class/Position: D Medic
Gametype: Conca Jumping
Affiliations: ^iv
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Perhaps I'm viewing it out of context. Do you mean that the BASIS of the different types of marriage is what you stated?

PS Psychology courses really calm you down...
__________________
I have a nasopharyngeal and webcam...

First infraction! Flaming!
zSilver_Fox is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-05-2007, 04:42 AM   #117
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox
Perhaps I'm viewing it out of context. Do you mean that the BASIS of the different types of marriage is what you stated?

PS Psychology courses really calm you down...
I was just pointing out that the state does not care about, nor require, "love" to unionize individuals.
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-05-2007, 10:56 AM   #118
FrenchToast
The 1337est
D&A Member
 
FrenchToast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Omagosh Canada.
Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times
No, but you're also implying that religion does. *cough* Arranged marriages *cough* etc.

In the end, love is quite an optional thing in marriage, regardless of the religious or civil aspect of it.
__________________
James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had' ; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher.
FrenchToast is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-05-2007, 01:52 PM   #119
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchToast
No, but you're also implying that religion does. *cough* Arranged marriages *cough* etc.
No, you're reading that assumtion into it. I'm well aware of arranged marriages, and even considered mentioning that in the above posts because I was sure someone would try the old "well here's a single exception to the case so you're entire argument must be WRONG!", but I gave ya the benefit of the doubt.

As I said above, my statement was very clear, that civil marriage is not about love at all. That's all. If you want to read other things into that, feel free.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-05-2007, 01:53 PM   #120
Ihmhi
[AE] 0112 Ihmhi *SJB
Wiki Team
Fortress Forever Staff
 
Ihmhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Newark, NJ, United States
Class/Position: A little bit o' everythin'
Gametype: Also a little bit o' everythin'
Affiliations: [AE] Asseater, *SJB Straight Jacket Brigade
Posts Rated Helpful 3 Times
Send a message via AIM to Ihmhi Send a message via MSN to Ihmhi Send a message via Yahoo to Ihmhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
I was just pointing out that the state does not care about, nor require, "love" to unionize individuals.
Then why should the state really care about the gender of people in a marriage?
__________________
Support FF:
Anime: The Thread: Reloaded
The one and only anime thread on these here forums.

Select the pistol, and then, select your horse.
Ihmhi is offline   Reply With Quote


Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.