7/15/2013 3:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/15/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Because you say so?
Isn't it because YOU say so?
7/15/2013 3:20 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/15/2013 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/15/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/15/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by greeny9 on 7/15/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2013 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by greeny9 on 7/14/2013 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/13/2013 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Is that any different from those who feel that their "new" views or opinions are somehow "better" for society, and insist that the world change to fit their new views?  And whoever is reluctant or unwilling to jump on the bandwagon must be ostracized?
society is better when people have the right to do things that they want to do when what they want to do does not directly hurt others, especially when they simply want to do things that are legal for the majority of the population.  Or is society better when its unchanging and rigid?  Society changes, and our institutions should be able to change with them.
Shooting black tar heroin doesn't directly hurt anyone else.   I don't think BTH users are good for society. 
Really it doesnt?  How about the people that DUI?  Or the kids of addicts I guess they arent harmed.  Not to mention crack babies, I suppose they werent harmed or wronged?  Seriously guys, these are your best arguements?  This is like arguing with the mentally handicapped.  If you want to argue that gay marriage is on par with smoking crack or shooting heroin tell me precisely how is Mark and Frank marrying harming you personally?  In any situation at all how can their marriage possibly hurt you?  Ive given you a few REAL and undeniably harmful things that can and absolutely do happen with addicts and people who cross paths with them, please do the same.
I'm talking about one individual shooting black tar heroin.   Not his/her make believe children or crack babies.

Nonetheless, I've argued that EVERYTHING has some effect on society.   It may be small and insignificant but nobody lives in a vacuum(if they're part of society).   "Does not directly hurt others" can be applied to damn near everything done in the privacy of one's home.
Ok. So what's the negative effect on society if we allow gay marriage?
What's the positive effect if SSM is allowed?
I'm not arguing that there are positive effects. I'm arguing that there are no negative effects.
Shouldn't actions taken have intended positive effects?  Otherwise, what's the point of taking said action?

As the old saying goes . . . if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
A group of people want the ability to marry the person they love. Their relationships are perfectly legal and there is no negative effect in allowing them to marry. That's good enough for me.
7/15/2013 3:21 PM
I prefer inaction over pointless action.   Seems like a sound way to live.

Scurrying about and doing nothing is pointless.
7/15/2013 3:29 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/15/2013 3:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/15/2013 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/15/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/15/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by greeny9 on 7/15/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2013 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by greeny9 on 7/14/2013 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/13/2013 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Is that any different from those who feel that their "new" views or opinions are somehow "better" for society, and insist that the world change to fit their new views?  And whoever is reluctant or unwilling to jump on the bandwagon must be ostracized?
society is better when people have the right to do things that they want to do when what they want to do does not directly hurt others, especially when they simply want to do things that are legal for the majority of the population.  Or is society better when its unchanging and rigid?  Society changes, and our institutions should be able to change with them.
Shooting black tar heroin doesn't directly hurt anyone else.   I don't think BTH users are good for society. 
Really it doesnt?  How about the people that DUI?  Or the kids of addicts I guess they arent harmed.  Not to mention crack babies, I suppose they werent harmed or wronged?  Seriously guys, these are your best arguements?  This is like arguing with the mentally handicapped.  If you want to argue that gay marriage is on par with smoking crack or shooting heroin tell me precisely how is Mark and Frank marrying harming you personally?  In any situation at all how can their marriage possibly hurt you?  Ive given you a few REAL and undeniably harmful things that can and absolutely do happen with addicts and people who cross paths with them, please do the same.
I'm talking about one individual shooting black tar heroin.   Not his/her make believe children or crack babies.

Nonetheless, I've argued that EVERYTHING has some effect on society.   It may be small and insignificant but nobody lives in a vacuum(if they're part of society).   "Does not directly hurt others" can be applied to damn near everything done in the privacy of one's home.
Ok. So what's the negative effect on society if we allow gay marriage?
What's the positive effect if SSM is allowed?
I'm not arguing that there are positive effects. I'm arguing that there are no negative effects.
Shouldn't actions taken have intended positive effects?  Otherwise, what's the point of taking said action?

As the old saying goes . . . if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
A group of people want the ability to marry the person they love. Their relationships are perfectly legal and there is no negative effect in allowing them to marry. That's good enough for me.
"Because I say so".

Go ahead.  You can say it.
7/15/2013 3:29 PM
I guess some people prefer to dictate how others get to live their lives. Not me.
7/15/2013 3:32 PM
No.  You just prefer to dictate social policy.
7/15/2013 3:34 PM
Posted by bistiza on 7/15/2013 3:01:00 PM (view original):
There have been NO definative unrefutable studies showing kids of gay couples being worse off then those from hetero couples.

The homosexual agenda will always dispute any study that shows homosexual couples are worse parents no matter what. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
that countries and or states that allow gay marriage are happier then those who dont.

That would be an interesting study, and I think it would show people are NOT as happy in those countries, mostly because the people who don't agree with SSM's being unhappy negates any happiness felt by those who are happier for it, and the overall tension is the only tiebreaker, and as most tension does, it brings happiness down.
LOL @ greeny for arguing with biz.
You think it's funny that "greeny" has put together a better argument in two or three posts than you and several others could in at least ten times the number of posts?

Yeah, come to think of it, that is rather amusing. This guy has shown up the combined "powers" of several of you, including tec and BL, and all within a few simple posts. That's hilarious.
Just like the anti-SSM agenda will dispute studies in favor of it.  Kind of a stale mate here.

Well, I am doing a bit of studying on it, just to see if my accertation is right.  And here are my findings.  From the OECDs better life index.  (I think it pretty accurately estimates happiness) here is the rankings from 1 to 10 and if they allow SSM or not:

1. Australia: does not yet, but the new PM is openly for allowing it, and is reportedly fighting for it...
2. Sweden fully allowed
3. Canada fully allowed
4. Norway fully allowed
5. Switzerland does not, but recognizes people who move there who are SSM
6. USA roughly half of the population of the states live in states that allow SSM.
7. Denmark fully allowed
8. Netherlands fully allowed
9. Iceland fully allowed
10.  UK complicated, but basically allowed after jumping through some hoops, but is very likely to be fully allowed by 2015.

Interesting, all but 2 of the 10 either fully allow it, or a significant portion of their population can have SSM if they choose.  I fully expect most anti-SSMers to call BS on this, but I am satisfied with the result.

7/15/2013 3:38 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/15/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
No.  You just prefer to dictate social policy.
No more than you.
7/15/2013 3:39 PM
Meth makes people happy.
7/15/2013 3:39 PM
What's the positive effect if SSM is allowed?

I'm not arguing that there are positive effects. I'm arguing that there are no negative effects.

If there are no positive effects, why bother?


The positive effect is that freedom is gained by an oppressed populace...

What is wrong with freedom?

Ive always found it funny that repubs in general are against SSM and yet they seem to think they fight for freedom and justice.  what a crock.
7/15/2013 3:46 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2013 3:21:00 PM (view original):
I prefer inaction over pointless action.   Seems like a sound way to live.

Scurrying about and doing nothing is pointless.
If you guys are so afraid of gays and lesbians maybe you should move to the bible belt, or better yet to Saudi Arabia whose ultimately forward thinking government put to death people who dare to be gay. 

7/15/2013 3:49 PM
Posted by dapperduck on 7/15/2013 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Meth makes people happy.
So does Disneyland.
7/15/2013 3:49 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/15/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
No.  You just prefer to dictate social policy.
He is not doing anything different then you Tec, in that he is giving his opinion on the matter.  A more highly evolved opinion no doubt, but still just his opinion.  You and MikeT and you other troglodytes should just jump into your time machines and blast back to your fav decade the 50s and just stay there.  Either that or move to Saudi Arabia and be with your own kind.
7/15/2013 3:57 PM
Posted by greeny9 on 7/15/2013 3:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2013 3:21:00 PM (view original):
I prefer inaction over pointless action.   Seems like a sound way to live.

Scurrying about and doing nothing is pointless.
If you guys are so afraid of gays and lesbians maybe you should move to the bible belt, or better yet to Saudi Arabia whose ultimately forward thinking government put to death people who dare to be gay. 

Well, if you actually read the thread before responding you'd know that I don't care either way about SSM.   Just a few pages ago I said "Let them get married and have all the problems that come with it."

I'm just shitting all over the reasons BL has given to allow it.    Because they're stupid.
7/15/2013 4:11 PM
Apparently, you need shitting practice. You aren't doing a very good job.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.