Video Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"; Gets booed

[maxpowr9]

I really respect you for not engaging his bullshit. This is exactly the core of my issue with all the weirdos ranting about definitions and how things "should" be - they always seem to ignore the actual reality and its implications for regular people.

Ironic because you just espoused the conservative value of "regular people".

 

[Just_Believe18]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

You need to stop calling members of this forum "child." They are grown men who are entitled to their own opinions. You need to stop insulting the intelligence of other members. This is a community that strives towards respect, and is governed by a Code of Conduct. If you cannot follow the basic protocols of respect and engagement on this sub-forum, then you should seek attention elsewhere.

 

[Stardreamer]

Re: Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"; Gets booed

By this reasoning, democracy can't work.

It isn't necessary for all members of a democracy to love each other equally.

 

[itsmejeff]

It isn't necessary for all members of a democracy to love each other equally.

Refer to the highlighted portion of the quoted text:

"Polygamy can work but there is an inherent instability in its structure since it almost impossible for all members of the group to be equal"

the argument made in the original post is that polygamy is unworkable because of inequality in groups of more than two (because two persons cannot be unequal? Have pre-nuptial agreements been eliminated? Have unions between persons of different status been banned?). The person to whom you replied simply stated that the inequality of groups would also preclude democracy from working. How can a system of government and/or a system of social interaction based upon the assumption of equality work if people cannot actually be equal?

You need to stop calling members of this forum "child." They are grown men who are entitled to their own opinions. You need to stop insulting the intelligence of other members. This is a community that strives towards respect, and is governed by a Code of Conduct. If you cannot follow the basic protocols of respect and engagement on this sub-forum, then you should seek attention elsewhere.

I have not insulted anyone.

I have replied with the utmost amount of discretion. When I am misrepresented, I need to response appropriately. I believe that I did.

I do apologize if anyone is offended by my mostly objective statements. I do not know what those who are offended can do to better comprehend what I have written.

 

[xbuzzerx]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

I have not insulted anyone.

Mmhmm. I guess as simple not very intelligent homosex folk, we're now incapable of grasping insults.

 

[itsmejeff]

Mmhmm. I guess as simple not very intelligent homosex folk, we're now incapable of grasping insults.

Posing queries is not insulting. One user has repeatedly failed to understand what I have written. I have simply asked if he (assume male) has difficulties with language.

I stand by my no insults statement.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Posing queries is not insulting. One user has repeatedly failed to understand what I have written. I have simply asked if he (assume male) has difficulties with language.

I stand by my no insults statement.

That's a load of bull and we both know it. If you were remotely interested in a real discussion you would explain pieces of your statements that were not properly understood, instead of "implying" everyone who misunderstood it lacks intelligence or English skills.

You are intending to be insulting, and your superiority complex got old 2 days after you got here.

 

[Just_Believe18]

I have not insulted anyone.

I have replied with the utmost amount of discretion. When I am misrepresented, I need to response appropriately. I believe that I did.

I do apologize if anyone is offended by my mostly objective statements. I do not know what those who are offended can do to better comprehend what I have written.

We'll let the moderators be the judge of that.

 

[itsmejeff]

That's a load of bull and we both know it. If you were remotely interested in a real discussion you would explain pieces of your statements that were not properly understood, instead of "implying" everyone who misunderstood it lacks intelligence or English skills.

You are intending to be insulting, and your superiority complex got old 2 days after you got here.

I am intending to do nothing other than provide an opinion. the real problem is the inability of other users to move beyond the granfalloon of "gay." they actually believe that holding a different opinion is impossible. They refuse to go against the gay" hive mind.

maybe I do not belong here. Logic and rational thought appear to be the enemy on this forum.

 

[chrisrobin]

Re: Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"; Gets booed

It isn't necessary for all members of a democracy to love each other equally.

All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. George Orwell - Animal Farm

 

[Rolyo85]

maybe I do not belong here.

GOSH, YOU THINK?

Logic and rational thought appear to be the enemy on this forum.

+

I stand by my no insults statement.

=

It's my opinion that people who lack basic communication skills, think everyone else is an idiot and their first go-to response in an argument is "well, clearly your reasoning abilities aren't good enough to understand me", are probably friendless sociopaths who aren't even getting enough enjoyment out of their dysfunctional contact with others to be called trolls. I AM NOT OFFENDING ANYONE, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S CLEARLY A MEMBER IN HERE THAT THIS CLEARLY COULD APPLY TO THOUGH, I AM TOTALLY STANDING BEHIND MY NO INSULT STATEMENT!

 

[Stardreamer]

Re: Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"; Gets booed

Refer to the highlighted portion of the quoted text:

"Polygamy can work but there is an inherent instability in its structure since it almost impossible for all members of the group to be equal"

the argument made in the original post is that polygamy is unworkable because of inequality in groups of more than two (because two persons cannot be unequal? Have pre-nuptial agreements been eliminated? Have unions between persons of different status been banned?). The person to whom you replied simply stated that the inequality of groups would also preclude democracy from working. How can a system of government and/or a system of social interaction based upon the assumption of equality work if people cannot actually be equal?

Those systems are not as directly personal and intimate as a marriage is, they have room for flexibility that a marriage does not. As long as the doubt 'does he love her more than me?' can crop up in a group marriage, the structure of that marriage will be potentially unstable.

- - - Updated - - -

All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. George Orwell - Animal Farm

An excellent example of my point, thank you.

 

[itsmejeff]

Re: Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"; Gets booed

I find the limited knowledge of human mating habits--especially those regarding homosex males--to be pathetic. The claims about commitment and love are a joke. It really seems like this posters in this thread are high school girls. Humans are not monogamous. At best (according to most social scientists), humans practice serial monogamy. It is worse for homosex because of a lack of children (children tend to force parents to stay together for a period; the lack of children is one of the reasons for "gay death"). There is no real need for commitment. And it does not exist. Rates of open relationships and infidelity exceed 50% of homosex male, according to studies. So much for the "instability" of multiple partners.

More to the point of this thread: the commenter in the article is wrong; so too are those who claim that "gay marriage" (term for a nonexistent union employed by the stupid) is "marriage equality." the attempt to distance same-sex marriage from polygamy is a fucking joke. It makes no sense logically. That is most likely why those commenting are engaging in inane arguments that have nothing to do with the concept of marriage. What people are doing instead are using emotion or unscientific statements/reasoning (polygamy must equal polygyny!) to attempt to "argue" their points.

At any rate, you're just handwaving that none of those things I mentioned will impact things like the welfare of children involved in a multi-party marriage, the ability of a non working spouse to survive in the case of the end of a marriage or the death of a primary income earner, and a ton of other considerations. Those things will all have real impact on real people, including people who don't have a say in the matter (such as various children of members of a polygamist marriage) which is why the precise same argument made for gay marriage cannot be made for a polygamist marriage.

Because marriage has nothing to do with children. Children are dealt with in other areas of law. Non-married persons deal with custody and child support. Marriage does not create liability to care for a child. Adoption could, but marriage does not. That is not how this society works. Parentage(maternity and paternity) matters. not marriage.

It's my opinion that people who lack basic communication skills, think everyone else is an idiot and their first go-to response in an argument is "well, clearly your reasoning abilities aren't good enough to understand me", are probably friendless sociopaths who aren't even getting enough enjoyment out of their dysfunctional contact with others to be called trolls. I AM NOT OFFENDING ANYONE, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S CLEARLY A MEMBER IN HERE THAT THIS CLEARLY COULD APPLY TO THOUGH, I AM TOTALLY STANDING BEHIND MY NO INSULT STATEMENT!

I never claimed that all forums users were "idiots". Only one person. And he or she clearly is. You may be as well. I have not come to a conclusion on that issue yet.

By the bye, i like the use of the word "though" twice in one sentence. Keep butchering the language, kids.

I know you want to challenge and redefine human nature in all of your posts; however, when it comes down to the subjective reality we live in for the society we are a part of, marriage equality is important to us.

I am not challenging anything.

If heterosexual relationships are recognized by their government and are afforded benefits and protections, then homosexual relationships are equally as deserving.

That is your problem right there. Your entire argument is based upon the false assumption that those with married status deserve special treatment under the law. They do not. The social "benefits" of marriage are a myth. Married people do not do better because they are married; poor people just tend not to get married at all (marriage penalty is a reason for this). Wealthier people tend not to marry or have children until they have the resources to start a family. People with something to lose are very afraid to lose it. Married males are not better workers; there is prejudice against unmarried males. There is no valid reason to subsidize marriage (which mostly helps wealthy people). the arguments to do so generally come from people who are upper middle class or better? Why? Because they want the subsidies.

Look at trends. As society becomes more free and more equal, rates of marriage drop. Rates of divorce increase. rates of children born out of wedlock also increase. Oh, noes! End of days! help us, L. ron! We are going straight to someplace really bad.

The above prejudice does not just extend to single persons though. People in non-monogamous relationships are viewed equally as poorly. they are also denied benefits and rights. Because that is what the good lord intended.

Those systems are not as directly personal and intimate as a marriage is, they have room for flexibility that a marriage does not. As long as the doubt 'does he love her more than me?' can crop up in a group marriage, the structure of that marriage will be potentially unstable.

Because marriages limited to two parties are stable? The artificial construct of "marriage" prevents acts that result in jealousy, anger, and other negative feelings that would reduce stability?

Not quite. And such instability extends to society as a whole as well. Noticeable differences between wealth is a driver of crime and volatility.

I find it odd that your example included a "she" a homosex porn website. How many females do you expect to have in your plural marriage?

 

[opinterph]

Thread closed for review.