Justice Scalia Found Dead in Texas

Cadenza has moved on | Ascended Posting Riot
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Cadenza
IP: Logged

596 posts
 
On the topic of Gay marriage, there are three cases to consider, Government; Religion, Society:

Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.

Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.

Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.

Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.


 
Alternative Facts
| Mythic Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: IcyWind
IP: Logged

9,381 posts
 
Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.

Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.

Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.

Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.

Please tell me you are trolling so I don't have to nitpick this post to hell and back.


Septy | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: DarkestSeptagon
PSN: Fallfav
Steam:
ID: Septy
IP: Logged

12,027 posts
See you Cowgirl,
Someday, somewhere
On the topic of Gay marriage, there are three cases to consider, Government; Religion, Society:

Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.

Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.

Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.

Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.
I didn't know you have to get married to have kids.

OT: This will tip the Judicial Branch into the liberal side.

Good riddance conservatives.


ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: TrussingDoor
IP: Logged

7,667 posts
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us'."
-Saint Anthony the Great
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
On the topic of Gay marriage, there are three cases to consider, Government; Religion, Society:

Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.

Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.

Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.

Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.
Monogamous marriages, regardless of sex, are preferable for producing working, tax paying adults.

Orphans are a thing.

Therefor it's in the state's and society's interest to promote committed monogamous relationships, regardless of sex.
Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 01:04:49 AM by eggsalad


Cadenza has moved on | Ascended Posting Riot
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Cadenza
IP: Logged

596 posts
 
Please tell me you are trolling so I don't have to nitpick this post to hell and back.
I'm not; marriage has a very simple purpose no matter how you frame it, it's to help with raising kids; if you don't want kids then marriage isn't for you and that's fine.

And I'd be happy for you to nitpick it, AB testing my ideas like this is very helpful.

I didn't know you have to get married to have kids.
You don't, the purpose of marriage is to make having kids easier but it is optional, bastard.

god (equality)
You're onto something, but you're not quite there yet.

Spoiler
Are you trying to spook me?


Septy | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: DarkestSeptagon
PSN: Fallfav
Steam:
ID: Septy
IP: Logged

12,027 posts
See you Cowgirl,
Someday, somewhere
I didn't know you have to get married to have kids.
You don't, the purpose of marriage is to make having kids easier but it is optional, bastard.
lol


Cadenza has moved on | Ascended Posting Riot
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Cadenza
IP: Logged

596 posts
 
Monogamous marriages, regardless of sex, are preferable for producing working, tax paying adults.
What do you mean by preferable?
Quote
Orphans are a thing.
If the majority of Gay marriages were about adopting orphans that would be a fair point, but that begs the question of if Gay adoption is a good alternative to what we have now.
Quote
Therefor it's in the state's and society's interest to promote committed monogamous relationships, regardless of sex.
That I can agree with, monogamous relationships are better for society, but you'll have to go a step further to justify Gay marriage over a Gay relationship.


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
What do you mean by preferable?

It is the preferable situation for kids.
Quote
If the majority of Gay marriages were about adopting orphans that would be a fair point, but that begs the question of if Gay adoption is a good alternative to what we have now.
Alternative to what?
Gays being allowed to adopt doesn't take away from others ability to adopt, right now there are plenty of kids without homes that aren't being taken up by heterosexual couples.
Quote
That I can agree with, monogamous relationships are better for society, but you'll have to go a step further to justify Gay marriage over a Gay relationship.
Marriage as it stands exists to strengthen the bond of a monogamous relationship to legal status, creating greater mutual obligation and more difficult exit. Barring a group from that, especially if you want couples to be staying together longer, is counter-productive.
Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 01:55:51 AM by eggsalad


PSU | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: PSU
IP: Logged

6,089 posts
 
I didn't know you have to get married to have kids.



You don't HAVE to obviously, but you should.

Its one of the major downfalls of the black community, something like 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. Having a strong set of parents is a huge part of a child's upbringing.


🂿 | Mythic Unfrigginbelievable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Decimator Omega
IP: Logged

21,882 posts
 
Good riddance.


 
Alternative Facts
| Mythic Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: IcyWind
IP: Logged

9,381 posts
 
Good riddance.

Even if you dislike every opinion he wrote, he's still been a huge influence on government for the past thirty years.


🂿 | Mythic Unfrigginbelievable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Decimator Omega
IP: Logged

21,882 posts
 
Good riddance.

Even if you dislike every opinion he wrote, he's still been a huge influence on government for the past thirty years.

Nothing of value was lost.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,942 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Cadenza has moved on | Ascended Posting Riot
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Cadenza
IP: Logged

596 posts
 
What do you mean by preferable?

It is the preferable situation for kids.
You said "for producing working, tax paying adults."
Quote
Quote
If the majority of Gay marriages were about adopting orphans that would be a fair point, but that begs the question of if Gay adoption is a good alternative to what we have now.
Alternative to what?
Gays being allowed to adopt doesn't take away from others ability to adopt, right now there are plenty of kids without homes that aren't being taken up by heterosexual couples.
Alternative to the current system of adoption; if a Gay couple adopts a child then another couple or family member cannot adopt that child, so it's up to you and other advocates to make the case that Gay marriage is a viable method for raising orphans and that it is significantly better than other methods of raising orphans. Furthermore that does imply that a Gay couple that isn't going to adopt orphans has no justification for getting married.
Quote
Quote
That I can agree with, monogamous relationships are better for society, but you'll have to go a step further to justify Gay marriage over a Gay relationship.
Marriage as it stands exists to strengthen the bond of a monogamous relationship to legal status, creating greater mutual obligation and more difficult exit. Barring a group from that, especially if you want couples to be staying together longer, is counter-productive.
And the purpose for strengthening that bond is to help with raising children. If you don't want children then marriage isn't for you, use a different method for strengthening your relationship instead of trying to force a system to cater to a group of people that it was never meant to cater to.


Ian | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Gaara444
IP: Logged

9,245 posts
Signature goes here.
Considering almost 1/3 of married couples don't have a child, the original purpose you are bringing up now is practically non-existent. Especially when the system is showing support for that 1/3 and is steadily rising. I'm not saying the nuclear family is bad, but that time is coming to a close. Keep in mind that this has been on the rise since the end of the 50's "Traditional America".

And the purpose for strengthening that bond is to help with raising children. If you don't want children then marriage isn't for you, use a different method for strengthening your relationship instead of trying to force a system to cater to a group of people that it was never meant to cater to.


Cadenza has moved on | Ascended Posting Riot
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Cadenza
IP: Logged

596 posts
 
Considering almost 1/3 of married couples don't have a child, the original purpose you are bringing up now is practically non-existent. Especially when the system is showing support for that 1/3 and is steadily rising. I'm not saying the nuclear family is bad, but that time is coming to a close. Keep in mind that this has been on the rise since the end of the 50's "Traditional America".

And the purpose for strengthening that bond is to help with raising children. If you don't want children then marriage isn't for you, use a different method for strengthening your relationship instead of trying to force a system to cater to a group of people that it was never meant to cater to.
Two thirds of married couples have children, that's double the amount that don't, and yet you're trying to say they don't even exist? that doesn't make any sense at all.

As for the trend, what's your point? that liberalism continues to be a failure of an ideology?


Ian | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Gaara444
IP: Logged

9,245 posts
Signature goes here.
I didn't say they don't exist, I said the original purpose behind the system supporting marriage doesn't.

Two thirds of married couples have children, that's double the amount that don't, and yet you're trying to say they don't even exist? that doesn't make any sense at all.

What exactly is being failed?
Quote
As for the trend, what's your point? that liberalism continues to be a failure of an ideology?


Cadenza has moved on | Ascended Posting Riot
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Cadenza
IP: Logged

596 posts
 
I didn't say they don't exist, I said the original purpose behind the system supporting marriage doesn't.

Two thirds of married couples have children, that's double the amount that don't, and yet you're trying to say they don't even exist? that doesn't make any sense at all.
And the original purpose clearly does exist given that the majority of married couples have children. You said this yourself.

Quote
What exactly is being failed?
As for the trend, what's your point? that liberalism continues to be a failure of an ideology?
"Ending Traditional America" for starters.

Your reply format is annoying to deal with.
Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 09:36:38 PM by Cadenza


 
Jono
| Future Nostalgia
 
more |
XBL: HundredJono
PSN: HundredJono
Steam: hundredjono55
ID: Jono
IP: Logged

18,486 posts
Goodness gracious, great balls of lightning!
Next supreme court justice will probably be an obese black liberal lesbian atheist immigrant


PSU | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: PSU
IP: Logged

6,089 posts
 
Obama had him killed.


 
Alternative Facts
| Mythic Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: IcyWind
IP: Logged

9,381 posts
 
Obama had him killed.

This is Serious.


PSU | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: PSU
IP: Logged

6,089 posts
 


The Hån | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: The Han
IP: Logged

2,853 posts
does this stuff even work?
Wow after reading most of these posts most of you sound more hateful than he ever was.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Sucks, but the guy was a fucking scumbag.
Yeah man, it sucks that he defended your right to face your accuser in criminal proceedings, burn the flag and not be punished under unclear laws.

What a fucking scumbag.


Nick McIntyre | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Nick McIntyre92
PSN: NicholasMcIntyre
Steam: Nick McIntyre
ID: Nick McIntyre
IP: Logged

3,143 posts
 
Sucks, but the guy was a fucking scumbag.
Yeah man, it sucks that he defended your right to face your accuser in criminal proceedings, burn the flag and not be punished under unclear laws.

What a fucking scumbag.

Scalia as himself, not as the judge, was a scumbag, especially when decrying the legality of gay marriage by practically saying, "Oh should we allow child abusers and pedophiles to be protected now?"  I won't deny his massive influence on the government, and applaud (even if only a handful) a few of his Court Opinions, such as Rasul v. Bush.

But yeah, as a person I didn't like him.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Scalia as himself [. . .] was a scumbag
That's even less convincing. Not only is it ludicrous to try and consider him as an individual distinct from his role as a justice--since that pretty much defines anybody's life after occurring--but here is a man who was capable of putting political differences aside for the sake of fulfilling relationships with people as far away from him as Christopher Hitchens, has been a defining character in the development of jurisprudence and studying the constitution and who was able to rule as he thought the constitution demanded he rule as opposed to how his personal opinions would have him rule.

Quote
"Oh should we allow child abusers and pedophiles to be protected now?"
The point he was making was that it's not up the Supreme Court to determine which minorities deserve protection. He brought up paedophiles to illustrate the point, calling them "a deserving minority" precisely because nobody loves them and how much outrage it would cause if the situation were altered.

Do I agree gay marriage should be legal? Of course, but it's not the job of the Court to make it so.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
I'm not saying the nuclear family is bad, but that time is coming to a close.
History is not directional.

Bad trends should be fought wherever they are found, and if there's one hill worth dying on it's definitely the nuclear family.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Good riddance.
"It's okay if people die, so long as they disagree with me".


DisturbedMind883 | Respected Posting Frenzy
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DisturbedMind883
IP: Logged

399 posts
 
Good, one less old white guy in power so we can get the ball rolling.