[xasop]

Yeah, he's nuts. When you're throwing out beneficial and fundamental schemes in the name of ideology, you should probably temper the ideology a tad.

I can agree he's too idealistic; my point was just that his views are consistent. Socially, he is a staunch libertarian; he advocates liberties that are accepted by most social progressives as harmless to others (such as gay marriage), as well as liberties that are more controversial (such as free gun ownership). Economically, he advocates small government to an extreme degree, preferring private ownership of social services to government ownership; no doubt he would argue for replacing Medicare with a free market for private health insurance.

As much as we may disagree with his economic standpoint, those views are not at odds with his social policies. He becomes much less of an enigma once you understand that.

[Pongo]

Hrmmm, I speculate that it hurts everyone because the go-go care-free party lifestyle of the typical homosexual is a drain on the economy.  Rather than getting real jobs, they party and put a drain on the universal healthcare system by contracting a multitude of diseases from this lifestyle.

Am I close?

So the answer to reducing the effects of that lifestyle is to forbid the most common method of settling down. Yeah, makes sense.

Are you... Are you trying to address the fictional complaint that I created?

[Pongo]

I deleted that before your reply as I assumed such a stupid thread was in Angry ranting. I will give a political reason why same sex marriage hurts ordinary people when I return from swimming. You may speculate wildly as to my reasoning in the mean time.

Is it because homosexuals do not reproduce so for every homosexual couple, you lose two adults that could otherwise reproduce and sire children that could contribute to the power and might of the British Empire United Kingdom?  As it is, they are just dead branches on a tree.

[xasop]

I deleted that before your reply as I assumed such a stupid thread was in Angry ranting. I will give a political reason why same sex marriage hurts ordinary people when I return from swimming. You may speculate wildly as to my reasoning in the mean time.

I particularly enjoy the implication here that gays are not "ordinary people". Thork, the requirement is not to show that same-sex marriage hurts heterosexual couples (even though it doesn't); rather, you need to show that one of the following holds:

- Allowing same-sex marriage harms heterosexual couples more than banning same-sex marriage harms same-sex couples.
- Avoiding harm to heterosexual couples is more important than avoiding harm to same-sex couples.

If you can't do that, then it wouldn't matter even if same-sex marriage did harm heterosexual couples.

[mister bickles]

Leyonjhelm's position on "gay marriage" (an oxymoron) is not that of supporting it, per se;

his position is that the government should not be involved;

just like it should not be involved in issues such as "gun laws", "drug laws" and "tax laws";

as such: his position would be that the government should not dictate who can and can't marry but it should also not be allowed to prosecute people for "hate speech" against 'gays' or against other races or, well, any-one for that matter;

(so.....if a Christian denomination refuses to allow gay teachers or employ gay workers or a Christian business refuses to serve gay customers or if a Christian preacher/minister/priest constantly condemns gays in the pulpit, the street or the media, then, there's nothing that the government should be able to do abt it!......)

as such: the Commonwealth anti-discrimination act(s) should be scrapped;

governments should be neither seen nor heard!

they have WAY too much power now and WAY too much high-tech surveillance capabilities @ their disposal......

a century or so ago, when their power was minimal compared with today, they could be tolerated....

now....we're better off without them!

modern technology makes them too dangerous and too much of a liability!   

[Particle Person]

- Avoiding harm to heterosexual couples is more important than avoiding harm to same-sex couples.

That one is easy. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals.

[xasop]

- Avoiding harm to heterosexual couples is more important than avoiding harm to same-sex couples.

That one is easy. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals.

Congratulations, you have a premise. Now try adding some logic and a conclusion.

[Particle Person]

If the severity of the harm caused to either group would be roughly equal, then I would harm the smaller group to minimize total suffering. This isn't relevant to this scenario, since I don't believe that homo marriage is at all harmful to hetero marriage.

[Lord Dave]

Thork's opposition to same sex marriage is that the marriage allows for tax breaks that are meant for couples to make babies and not for couples who do not contribute to society's baby population.

Basically: Gays get the tax breaks meant for baby making.

[xasop]

If the severity of the harm caused to either group would be roughly equal, then I would harm the smaller group to minimize total suffering.

If we accept utilitarianism, then that would indeed be a reasonable response. However, since utilitarianism is not part of the premise, you will need to justify a utilitarian approach if you want to rely on it.

[Pongo]

I sure hope Thork comes along soon and tells me how to think about this issue.

[Rushy]

If we accept utilitarianism, then that would indeed be a reasonable response. However, since utilitarianism is not part of the premise, you will need to justify a utilitarian approach if you want to rely on it.

"If we accept this ideology that makes you right then you are right." Awesome gem of wisdom, Parsifal.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

37 of our United States now have gay marriage or gay union laws, and I expect it will be all fifty within the 10 years, and the Federal Government will probably follow.

I figure, for secular purposes, I don't care who you marry. I mean, religion tells you one thing. I have my own beliefs on who you should marry and who you shouldn't marry, who you should schtupp, and who you shouldn't schtupp, and so-on. But it's not my business to tell other people who to marry or to schtupp. So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related, well, for secular purposes, marry them and/or schtupp them if that's what trips your trigger. Just don't ask me to agree with it necessarily.

And I would rather that a gay man get with one as opposed to getting with different men at the bar each night and risk getting disease, and emotional damage, and so-on. So, if that counts for much...

[xasop]

I figure, for secular purposes, I don't care who you marry. I mean, religion tells you one thing. I have my own beliefs on who you should marry and who you shouldn't marry, who you should schtupp, and who you shouldn't schtupp, and so-on. But it's not my business to tell other people who to marry or to schtupp. So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related, well, for secular purposes, marry them and/or schtupp them if that's what trips your trigger. Just don't ask me to agree with it necessarily.

This is a very reasonable approach, and I'm surprised to find that I completely agree with you on this. As an atheist, a secularist and a strong supporter of freedom of religion, I don't really care what religious institutions do. They can ban gays from joining their religion entirely for all I care.

My only interest is in ensuring that, as far as the law is concerned, no two consenting adults are treated differently from any other. Deregulating marriage altogether and leaving it in the hands of religion is an acceptable way to accomplish that.

I can respect your beliefs regarding marriage, but what I respect even more is that you aren't trying to impose them on others. If only our government would take the same approach.

[Thork]

So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related

Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

[Particle Person]

So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related

Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

Gay people can't create malformed babies.

[Thork]

So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related

Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

Gay people can't create malformed babies.

Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.

FYI, the odds of having a deformed baby with your sister are incredibly low. It is only likely if your family has a history of a disease that the odds start to increase as most genetic diseases are derived from non-recessive genes.

[Particle Person]

So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related

Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

Gay people can't create malformed babies.

Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.

So should siblings be mandated to be sterilized before marrying? (a woman can't have a vasectomy, by the way)

[Ghost of V]

Or a woman who has had a vasectomy.

Women can get vasectomies now?

[Rushy]

Or a woman who has had a vasectomy.

Women can get vasectomies now?

Thork has been confused as to what a woman is this whole time. It explains everything.