2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:14 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

That just isn't true at all. If that were true then once gay marriage was within the definition of marriage man+woman marriages would no longer be valid and recognized. This is obviously not the case.

you got it wrong. as marriage was until now exclusively reserved to man+woman, once you allow other configurations to the party, you no longer respect the former principle. the institution then no longer exists, as illogical as that might sound. what is now called marriage is not the same institution as the former one, because the former one no longer exists.

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:30 AM, A/D said:

Who gets to define the fundamental principle of marriage? You think it's gender-based, I think it's love-based.

i didn't say it was gender-based. i didn't even share my opinion on it.

as for who gets to define the principles, well, that's exactly what the french protesters are campaigning for. they don't want the former institution of marriage to be revoked by the government.

Ellen, who the fuck is Ellen

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:32 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

Media blackout on this:

http://abcnews.go.com/News/story?id=7942546

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/frank-lombard-duke-univ-o_n_221900.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/30/duke.molestation.internet/

^^The major outlet articles don't mention that he is gay. Amazing.^^

Here is a conservative article on it: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0815-laughable_double_standard.htm

this just in "ninja headbutts ellen page"

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:40 AM, sheatheman said:

Media blackout on this: http://abcnews.go.com/News/story?id=7942546

media blackout..?

You linked us to a news/media website to read the story m8 it's not blacked out lol.

also, disgusting.

No I mean search "Frank Lombard Duke" on google news. The story is over 4 years old. I get no results.

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:14 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

That just isn't true at all. If that were true then once gay marriage was within the definition of marriage man+woman marriages would no longer be valid and recognized. This is obviously not the case.

 

you got it wrong. as marriage was until now exclusively reserved to man+woman, once you allow other configurations to the party, you no longer respect the former principle. the institution then no longer exists, as illogical as that might sound. what is now called marriage is not the same institution as the former one, because the former one no longer exists.

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:30 AM, A/D said:

Who gets to define the fundamental principle of marriage? You think it's gender-based, I think it's love-based.

 

i didn't say it was gender-based. i didn't even share my opinion on it.

as for who gets to define the principles, well, that's exactly what the french protesters are campaigning for. they don't want the former institution of marriage to be revoked by the government.

 

It sounds illogical because it is illogical. The former principle is still respected because men and women are still allowed to marry. Marriage between a man and a woman is not changed. The new criteria creates possibility for new pairings, but it does not have an effect on the original pairings in respect to their marriage. It's false. You are lying to yourself, and you are promoting that lie to others.

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:55 AM, sheatheman said:

No I mean search "Frank Lombard Duke" on google news. The story is over 4 years old. I get no results.

I get tons. Why is this in this thread?

It's not false adieu. If a Chinese person is someone with Chinese lineage, and then people from Senegal start protesting that they want the right to be Chinese, granting them that right is eradicating what Chinese originally meant and replacing it with something new.

The problem with that guy is that he's a pedophile, not that he's gay. As disgusting as it is, plenty of pedophiles have adopted foster children and abused them.

If it gets less coverage, there could be lots of reasons. It's an unprovable jump to say you know for sure why that is.

Edit: Sheathe that's a silly comparison and you know it, though I can still say: just because one person says they're married has no effect on any other marriages. What's destroyed?

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:02 AM, sheatheman said:

It's not false adieu. If a Chinese person is someone with Chinese lineage, and then people from Senegal start protesting that they want the right to be Chinese, granting them that right is eradicating what Chinese originally meant and replacing it with something new.

I don't think this is a good analogy, but regardless the Chinese guy is still Chinese.

Eradicate means to destroy completely.

You guys would have a very reasonable argument if gay people wanted to own the label of marriage strictly for themselves. Unfortunately, they don't, and you guys are wrong.

I don't understand the motivation to be opposed to such an issue. Everyone is expending unnecessary energy. What is the consequence of allowing this to happen? The REAL consequence.

Not some bullshit about tradition and institutions...blah...blah...bullshit. Give me a real consequence. Is the world going to end? Is the sky going to fall down? Are people going to suffer an die?

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:57 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It sounds illogical because it is illogical. The former principle is still respected because men and women are still allowed to marry. Marriage between a man and a woman is not changed. The new criteria creates possibility for new pairings, but it does not have an effect on the original pairings in respect to their marriage. It's false. You are lying to yourself, and you are promoting that lie to others.

haha, i'm sorry you don't get it. it's ok.

i think you missed the part where i said "exclusive to man+woman", which means no other configuration fits the criteria. even if man+woman can still marry within the new institution, it's no longer the same institution. it's a new one, that replaced the no longer existing former one.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:03 AM, A/D said:

The problem with that guy is that he's a pedophile, not that he's gay. As disgusting as it is, plenty of pedophiles have adopted foster children and abused them.

 

If it gets less coverage, there could be lots of reasons. It's an unprovable jump to say you know for sure why that is.

 

Edit: Sheathe that's a silly comparison and you know it, though I can still say: just because one person says they're married has no effect on any other marriages. What's destroyed?

Isn't it kind of chilling that the story has almost zero mainline presence?

I'm not really going to get into the discussion of what is destroyed. Part of what is destroyed is my ability to express what I believe without being ostracized.

Truth is I do believe it will accelerate societal collapse, just like it has throughout history.

Now I will let adieu proceed with his ad hominem ad nauseam.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:12 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:57 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It sounds illogical because it is illogical. The former principle is still respected because men and women are still allowed to marry. Marriage between a man and a woman is not changed. The new criteria creates possibility for new pairings, but it does not have an effect on the original pairings in respect to their marriage. It's false. You are lying to yourself, and you are promoting that lie to others.

 

haha, i'm sorry you don't get it. it's ok.

i think you missed the part where i said "exclusive to man+woman", which means no other configuration fits the criteria. even if man+woman can still marry within the new institution, it's no longer the same institution. it's a new one, that replaced the no longer existing former one.

And marriage between men and women is effected how?

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:11 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

What is the consequence of allowing this to happen? The REAL consequence.

LOL

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:15 AM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:03 AM, A/D said:

The problem with that guy is that he's a pedophile, not that he's gay. As disgusting as it is, plenty of pedophiles have adopted foster children and abused them.

 

If it gets less coverage, there could be lots of reasons. It's an unprovable jump to say you know for sure why that is.

 

Edit: Sheathe that's a silly comparison and you know it, though I can still say: just because one person says they're married has no effect on any other marriages. What's destroyed?

 

Isn't it kind of chilling that the story has almost zero mainline presence?

 

I'm not really going to get into the discussion of what is destroyed. Part of what is destroyed is my ability to express what I believe without being ostracized.

 

Truth is I do believe it will accelerate societal collapse, just like it has throughout history.

 

Now I will let adieu proceed with his ad hominem ad nauseam.

 

Please explain away. I will refrain from calling you names if you are in need of such gentle treatment.

Please give me examples of previously accelerated societal collapse by allowing more people into the institution of marriage.

Also, please explain to me the positive benefit of the institution of marriage, and why that positive benefit is not applicable to any marriage that is not between strictly a man and a woman.

Also, I see news from ABC, CNN, Huffingtong Post, and pages of google results.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:20 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:11 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

What is the consequence of allowing this to happen? The REAL consequence.

 

 

LOL

 

You're comfortable making the claim that allowing gay marriage creates pedophiles?

Please explain to me how having gay marriages creates a direct increase in the amount of pedophiles in the world.

I said I wasn't going to get into a discussion. You know my answers already but you don't understand them.

The abc, cnn, and huff do not mention he is gay or an activist. There are no google news results for "frank lombard duke university." All of the other web results are right wing blogs.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:17 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

And marriage between men and women is effected how?

it's effected in the fact that it's no longer what was meant with marriage. it's basically the end of an ancient institution.

not to mention the agenda- pushing forcing that is very undemocratic.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:23 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:20 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:11 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

What is the consequence of allowing this to happen? The REAL consequence.

 

 

LOL

 

 

You're comfortable making the claim that allowing gay marriage creates pedophiles?

 

Please explain to me how having gay marriages creates a direct increase in the amount of pedophiles in the world.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:31 AM, sheatheman said:

I said I wasn't going to get into a discussion. You know my answers already but you don't understand them.

 

The abc, cnn, and huff do not mention he is gay or an activist. There are no news results google for "frank lombard duke university." All of the other web results are right wing blogs.

Please do not use the word understand in place of the word agree.

Also, you give no examples of previously accelerated societal collapse yet you claim it has happened.

You also don't explain why the benefits of marriage could not be applied to two men or two women.

You do realize that children are pretty much sexless up to a certain age? This is why young boys often look like young girls and vice versa. They have no body hair, no breasts, under-developed sex organs, their voices often sound the same. Many features are indistinguishable for the most part. The most common way to tell the sex of a child is by the way it is clothed. I imagine for most pedophiles you put a naked child in front of them they would have a go at it. I don't think I need to explain the differences between mature men and women to further illustrate my point.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:34 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:17 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

And marriage between men and women is effected how?

 

it's effected in the fact that it's no longer what was meant with marriage. it's basically the end of an ancient institution.

not to mention the agenda- pushing forcing that is very undemocratic.

 

That's not a relevant effect. You are being dogmatic rather than pragmatic. Marriage between men and women still exists. The institution is still available to them. All marriages that happened previous to that are still recognized. Their institution is still valid. Nothing is ending.

You are saying that marriage has no purpose other than honoring an unchanging tradition. What is the purpose of marriage other than honoring a tradition?

The political behavior of your country is not relevant to this discussion for me.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:40 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:23 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:20 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:11 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

What is the consequence of allowing this to happen? The REAL consequence.

 

 

LOL

 

 

You're comfortable making the claim that allowing gay marriage creates pedophiles?

 

Please explain to me how having gay marriages creates a direct increase in the amount of pedophiles in the world.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

 

It's not funny and it is something that many people sincerely believe without any evidence. Do you think it would negatively effect you psychologically if by your mere existence many people considered you as part of one of the most despised groups of people in history?

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:26 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:32 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

 

Everything has consequences.

A highly irrelevant proposition in my opinion.

Divorce has a high likelihood of damaging children's development. Maybe we should make divorce illegal. It does say in the vows, "Until death do us part, for better or for worse". Yet, I don't see people lobbying to enforce those words.

itt: an oilman who is both "interested in" collapsism as a means for social change and is also "agnostic" about climate change argues that gay marriage is going to accelerate societal collapse. well bring it on then, right shea? :D

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:23 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Also, please explain to me the positive benefit of the institution of marriage, and why that positive benefit is not applicable to any marriage that is not between strictly a man and a woman.

to me, this question is completely off-topic. the only serious question that must be asked is what do the people want. remember we're talking about democratic regimes.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:46 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Marriage between men and women still exists. The institution is still available to them. All marriages that happened previous to that are still recognized. Their institution is still valid. Nothing is ending.

from your pont of view, yeah.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:46 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

You are saying that marriage has no purpose other than honoring an unchanging tradition. What is the purpose of marriage other than honoring a tradition?

i didn't say this. i just want you to deal with the fact that some people don't want their traditions to end. refusing them that under the pretext of tolerance, is intolerance. deal with it. lol

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:46 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

The political behavior of your country is not relevant to this discussion for me.

too bad, because that's what's really at stake, to me. the gay rights debate is only distraction from the bigger picture.