Quote :

"This is BS on so many levels. Why is it that the self entitled feel like they can tell someone else how to run their own life?"

who the fuck is telling ANYONE how to run their life? you want benefits given to married people? get fucking married as it has always been known. you don't get married? you don't get those fucking benefits.

Quote :

"It is one thing to be personally against a certain idea, but entirely something else to force your own personal ideas onto other people, as if you know what is best for them."

who is forcing anything on anyone? there is no law requiring that people get married. there is, however, a law that grants some benefits to people who get married. and what is marriage? one man, one woman, same as it's always been. don't like it? don't get married

9/9/2011 3:03:21 PM

dude not gonna argue;

not being able to marry = 86 the benefits.

forcing them to marry the way you think they should = running their life.

9/9/2011 3:26:57 PM

but they ARE able to marry. they just choose not to. they have no right to the benefits. if they want them, then they do what is required. otherwise, they shut the fuck up. if I want the benefits of owning GM stock, i go and purchase it. if I want the benefits of being a Mason, I find some way to get in. Marriage is no different. what they want is to change the basic fucking definition of a word and then complain that society isn't being fair to their new definition

9/9/2011 3:29:32 PM

http://iserp.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/working_papers/2001_04.pdf

in hopes that mr. burro chooses to enlighten himself.

and, yes, it does affect your argument; you continue to list piss poor analogies like "buying GM stock", which is clearly a voluntary action. sexual orientation is involuntary.

perhaps you are bisexual, and you choose to pursue women, and that's why you feel that it's a choice. but, for us complete heterosexual males, i can assure you, despite what you may feel, it's not a choice.

i wish you luck in enlightening yourself by reading the paper above, and best of luck in resolving your bisexual issues.



[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

9/9/2011 3:34:48 PM

actually, the proper argument to use against aaronburro is that his justification of marriage (marrying for benefits) is actually fraud and can easily get you in legal hot water. So no, it's not the same thing at all.

9/9/2011 3:43:24 PM

Quote :

"perhaps you are bisexual, and you choose to pursue women, and that's why you feel that it's a choice. but, for us complete heterosexual males, i can assure you, despite what you may feel, it's not a choice."

ok. where's the gene. if it's 100% natural, where's the gay gene. what's the hormone that makes me go gay? what's the mechanism that drives a person one way or the other. fact is, science can't find it, and they won't. because it's a choice to deviate from natural programming. men fuck women, women fuck men. that's how it goes. anything else is a choice. and, you are right, heterosexuality is not really a choice. homosexuality, however, most certainly is

moreover, the paper you cited hardly proves your point that it isn't a choice. it says "Our results provide substantial support for the role of social influences, reject the hormone transfer model, reject a speculative evolutionary theory, and are consistent with a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions." It puts most of the weight on social influences, which would suggest choice over genes

^ i know what you are saying, but that's not really an argument against me. I'm not saying the justification for marriage is benefits. I'm addressing the complaint about the supposed inability to get said benefits, when the ability is most certainly there

Quote :

"and, yes, it does affect your argument"

no, it really doesn't. even if homosexuality weren't a choice, it still wouldn't change the fact that marriage as it has been known for thousands of years is defined as one man, one woman. how would it being a choice or not affect the fact a homosexual "marriage" would be missing one of the key attributes, namely a person of the opposite sex?

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 7:37 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2011 7:33:31 PM

The institution of marriage and marriage are not the same thing. Marriage has existed for much longer than the benefits conferred by government have.

9/9/2011 7:38:06 PM

I agree, which is why it is important to see on what the benefits were being bestowed to understand the context of the laws

9/9/2011 7:42:33 PM

So wait, you think that people actively choose a desire for faggotry?

...and THEN your argument is that "gays aren't discriminated against--they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Got it. You are a fucking moron. I don't even know where to start arguing with you, nor do I care to expend much energy thinking about it. Idiocy like that doesn't rate it.

Look, I'm not totally on board with calling 2 dudes or 2 broads "married"...but as a stopgap measure, they should be allowed to have civil unions and enjoy the same benefits. Of course, really, I don't think that's practical--I think that it would be so rampantly abused for financial reasons by heterosexuals that hopefully it would push us towards not having the federal government involved in the business of marriage or extending benefits towards couples of any flavor, which is the way we should be handling it to begin with.

9/9/2011 7:49:23 PM

it's fun reading this thread and seeing people argue with aaronburro for the first time.

9/9/2011 7:55:29 PM

^^ how do you figure, duke? The benefit is conferred upon people who marry. Nothing restricts homosexuals from marrying anyone of the opposite sex other than their own choice. It's exactly the same as a renter not being eligible for the First Time Homebuyer's Tax Credit: he chooses to rent instead of buying a house. Obviously I'm not dumb enough to suggest that such a decision is similar to a choice of homosexuality, but, in my mind, it ultimately is a choice, though not necessarily in a "let me get out my pen and paper and mark down stuff in each column" kind of a way.

I don't understand the ad hominem reaction to the claim that homosexuality is a choice. It's a claim that still has yet to be substantially challenged. Even the paper posted above alludes to the same thing. Moreover, it's a very logical claim when you get down to it. We reproduce sexually. Logic dictates that we would be naturally sexually attracted to the ones with whom we can sexually reproduce. To deviate against nature generally takes either dysfunction or choice, and I find it absurd to say that homosexuals have a disease or dysfunction of any type. The only other possibility is something else, and science simply can't find that something else, so the choice explanation wins the day. Again, I don't think it's a simple "do I like strawberries or cherries" choice. I certainly imagine that there is some social influence involved, but at the end of the day, I think it takes a choice to seal the deal.

9/9/2011 8:24:25 PM

There is no call for voluntary faggotry

9/9/2011 8:48:39 PM

there's no call for aaronburro

9/9/2011 8:57:20 PM

wait wait is jstpack gay

9/10/2011 10:52:27 AM

why don't you go find out? ifyaknowwhatimean

9/10/2011 11:40:59 AM

Back in the closet with you fags

9/10/2011 11:42:08 AM

Quote :

" because it's a choice to deviate from natural programming. men fuck women, women fuck men. that's how it goes. anything else is a choice. and, you are right, heterosexuality is not really a choice. homosexuality, however, most certainly is"

You cant debunk a theory with pure speculation, where is your proof? Is there any genetic evidence that women are supposed to fuck men and vice versa? Or are you gonna pull the "causation = correlation" fallacy.

Again, you are not aware of the fact that you are holding others to higher standards than you impose on yourself.

9/10/2011 11:46:37 AM

Go fuck a man see if you make a child. Thats all the proof you need.

9/10/2011 11:48:51 AM

Oh Shnap

9/10/2011 11:49:40 AM

social construt does not equal genetic evolution

9/10/2011 11:57:07 AM

So a man not having a baby is a social construct?

9/10/2011 11:59:36 AM

just read the first few pages, man I love me a good mc danger vs. aaronburro pwning, it's so unfair but so fun to watch

9/10/2011 12:12:34 PM

The comments on this article make my head hurt:

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/10115232/

9/12/2011 12:41:31 PM

Quote :

"where's the gay gene."

Where's the straight gene??

9/12/2011 12:50:46 PM

9/12/2011 1:03:40 PM

Quote :

"You cant debunk a theory with pure speculation, where is your proof?"

burden of proof is on the one positing the theory. I'm simply disagreeing with it, and rightfully so.

Quote :

"just read the first few pages, man I love me a good mc danger vs. aaronburro pwning"

TOo bad McDouche didn't say a damn thing except his usual "you are so stupid I won't talk to you" shit.

Quote :

"Where's the straight gene??"

Heterosexuality in a species which reproduces sexually should not be a surprise. Thus, the notion of it being naturally programmed isn't a fucking shock.

9/12/2011 1:06:05 PM

Good to see the NC legislature tackling this huge issue on the day that yet another potentially crippling blow to the states economy is revealed by BofA.

9/12/2011 1:09:37 PM

so, tell me. if the were voting on an amendment to allow gay marriage, would that be a waste of time? Funny how what is a "waste of time" often depends on which way the vote is going

9/12/2011 1:11:20 PM

It's a waste of time either way. And this type of thing shouldn't be put to a referendum anyway.

9/12/2011 1:16:49 PM

i agree, it is a waste of time, either way. glad to see that you are consistent enough to say so as well.

9/12/2011 1:27:10 PM

The argument over the definition of marriage is really just shitty semantics. People should stop trying to form arguments and instead just be open about their bigotry -- it would go a long ways in helping us understand where you are coming from.

The bottomline is you either think a gay couple should be given the same benefits as straight couples or you don't. Whether that means government only recognizing unions or changing the definition of marriage the end goal should be equality.

9/12/2011 1:30:04 PM

today will be a sad day if our government uses the constitution to start limiting the freedom of the people.

9/12/2011 1:33:32 PM

Quote :

"It's a waste of time either way. And this type of thing shouldn't be put to a referendum anyway. "

This.

9/12/2011 1:34:16 PM

Quote :

"The argument over the definition of marriage is really just shitty semantics."

no, it's really not. if the benefits were meant to be bestowed upon a specific criteria, then it makes perfect sense to uphold it. It's not "bigotry" to note the basic definition of a word. Bigotry would be saying "all fags should be stoned to death on the courthouse square".

Quote :

"today will be a sad day if our government uses the constitution to start limiting the freedom of the people."

how is anyone's freedom being limited, again? is anyone saying to jail any man who sucks a cock? Is there an amendment throw men in jail who ram a dick up their ass? Where is freedom being suppressed, dude?

9/12/2011 5:04:41 PM

The freedom of homos to enjoy the same treatment under the law as everyone else without resorting to paper marriages to people that they have no romantic interest in is being infringed upon.

Quote :

"no, it's really not. if the benefits were meant to be bestowed upon a specific criteria, then it makes perfect sense to uphold it. "

It also makes perfect sense in this case to not archaically continue to limit the extension of those benefits to those specific criteria.

Quote :

"It's not "bigotry" to note the basic definition of a word. Bigotry would be saying "all fags should be stoned to death on the courthouse square"."

So the 3/5 compromise was not rooted in bigotry? After all, it not only dealt with but in fact was the very definition of a word.

9/12/2011 5:16:28 PM

Duke

9/12/2011 5:23:25 PM

Quote :

"The freedom of homos to enjoy the same treatment under the law as everyone else without resorting to paper marriages to people that they have no romantic interest in is being infringed upon."

the moment they meet the basic definition of the word "marriage," then they'll get the benefits society deems proper. government recognition of your actions is not any measure of "freedom," last time I checked.

Quote :

"It also makes perfect sense in this case to not archaically continue to limit the extension of those benefits to those specific criteria."

then push to amend the law in a way that makes that abundantly clear.

Quote :

"So the 3/5 compromise was not rooted in bigotry?"

3/5ths wasn't a "basic definition" of a word. it was, in fact, a contrived definition. no one legitimately believed blacks were 3/5ths of a person. it was legal chicanery

9/12/2011 5:32:22 PM

Quote :

"Heterosexuality in a species which reproduces sexually should not be a surprise. Thus, the notion of it being naturally programmed isn't a fucking shock."

So we have discovered the straight gene?

9/12/2011 7:23:54 PM

Quote :

"the moment they meet the basic definition of the word "marriage," then they'll get the benefits society deems proper. government recognition of your actions is not any measure of "freedom," last time I checked."

burro still isn't accepting the fact that by meeting the basic definition of "marriage" would require them to do a 180 on their lively hood. This is bigotry plain and simple.

[Edited on September 12, 2011 at 7:52 PM. Reason : df]

9/12/2011 7:51:13 PM

Quote :

"the moment they meet the basic definition of the word "marriage," then they'll get the benefits society deems proper. government recognition of your actions is not any measure of "freedom," last time I checked."

It is only by the most tortured logic that you could argue that faggots' are afforded equal freedoms under our government.

You don't need to explain your response to this--I know what you'll say, and I fully comprehend your argument. I'm just saying that it's fucking stupid and ridiculous.

Quote :

"then push to amend the law in a way that makes that abundantly clear."

Legally, you can appeal to precedent...but then I would ask if you accept precedent as reason enough to maintain, say, a loose interpretation of the Constitution's interstate commerce or general welfare clauses, to which I know you'd say "no"...so let's discard the argument if precedent.

Aside from that, it seems to me that the onus should be upon you to justify why we should deny civil unions and the associated spousal benefits to butt-buddies, not on me to lobby for why we need a law explicitly affording them these things.

9/12/2011 8:25:31 PM

I take back my kissey faces

9/12/2011 8:28:15 PM

Oh sorry, got wrapped ip in my response

9/12/2011 8:31:02 PM

9/12/2011 8:33:24 PM

yeah that's better

9/12/2011 8:42:23 PM

Quote :

"how is anyone's freedom being limited, again? is anyone saying to jail any man who sucks a cock? Is there an amendment throw men in jail who ram a dick up their ass? Where is freedom being suppressed, dude?"

lol i love how you immediately launch into homosexual fantasy during your anti-gay rants

9/12/2011 10:06:58 PM

By that logic heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry either. They can still have sex so you're not infringing on their rights.

9/12/2011 10:11:13 PM

Hurr Durr Soapbox ITT.

9/12/2011 10:12:00 PM

Quote :

"It is only by the most tortured logic that you could argue that faggots' are afforded equal freedoms under our government."

I don't see what is tortured about looking at how the law was written and what it meant when it was written. You're a conservative. surely you can appreciate applying the law as it was meant to be applied and changing it when you want to do otherwise. I'm not saying this is how it should be. I'm just saying it is how it is.

Quote :

"Aside from that, it seems to me that the onus should be upon you to justify why we should deny civil unions and the associated spousal benefits to butt-buddies"

i'm not arguing that we should do that. I'm just saying what the law currently says. moreover, the burden of proof is on the one proposing change.

^ where am I being "anti-gay"? Where am I saying to lock up any man caught having sex with another man? exactly. more of the liberal "if you don't agree with me then you hate X" bullshit.

Quote :

"Legally, you can appeal to precedent...but then I would ask if you accept precedent as reason enough to maintain, say, a loose interpretation of the Constitution's interstate commerce or general welfare clauses, to which I know you'd say "no"...so let's discard the argument if precedent."

Precedent can be overturned when it has been shown that the original precedent was shown to be incorrect. If that weren't the case, then we'd still have segregated schools. In the case of the interstate commerce clause, it's not simply a matter of precedent. it's a matter of blatant misinterpretation. There's a difference.

BTW, I'm not appealing to a "precedent." I'm appealing to what the actual law is based on the definitions of the words in the law.

[Edited on September 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM. Reason : ]

9/12/2011 10:13:48 PM

I might respond to that later, or I might not bother. I don't know.

...but what is the reason for your opposition to civil unions?

9/12/2011 11:09:23 PM

Lol

Quote :

"Clint Eastwood: ‘I don’t give a f*ck’ if gays marry Don't expect to see him marching in a Pride parade anytime soon, but gays may have found an unexpected ally in Oscar-winning director Clint Eastwood. In the October issue of GQ magazine, Eastwood said that Republicans were making a big mistake by opposing same sex marriage. "These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?" Eastwood opined. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of." "They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.""

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/14/clint-eastwood-i-dont-give-a-fck-if-gays-marry/

9/14/2011 6:53:19 PM