Poll on Marriage (Fed vs State vs. Church)

[GreecePwns]

So again, why at the state level, Scotty? Why not at the town level?

Aren't you also asking "why not ignore the constitution"?

I'm asking what you think, not what the constitution says. Why do you personally believe states should decide, and not a smaller level of the federal system?

[Phatscotty]

So again, why at the state level, Scotty? Why not at the town level?

Aren't you also asking "why not ignore the constitution"?

I'm asking what you think, not what the constitution says. Why do you personally believe states should decide, and not a smaller level of the federal system?

I think states should decide because I think Democracy is a good idea, and is best suited to deal with this specific issue.

[GreecePwns]

Can a town of 50000 not vote on the same issues? Is it not democratic this way? If choice A gets 25001 votes and choice B gets 24999, we go with choice A, right?

[Phatscotty]

Can a town of 50000 not vote on the same issues? Is it not democratic this way? If choice A gets 25001 votes and choice B gets 24999, we go with choice A, right?

Sure, it's Democratic. Far more complicated, far more slippery in the slope. But don't let me stop you from exercising the worst possible scenario and building your main argument on it, in a fantasy land where there are no states rights, no 10th Amendment, and no common sense.

Could you actually get state and federal benefits from a marriage that is only recognized by a city???

[GreecePwns]

So what if we kept going down in levels? Why can we not legislate morality at the individual level, where morality is formed in the first place? A jurisdiction of 1 still decides democratically, and is the smallest government possible. One that cannot impose its morality on other individuals.

[Phatscotty]

I prefer for you to stop trolling. I have repeated time and again that I think Democracy works just fine on this issue. For you to counter that I hate freedom 8 times and prefer the government to decide for me shows I am wasting my time with someone who is not listening.

btw government benefits do not equal freedom. I know you Greeks have a hard time understanding that. Probably explains most of your confusion here

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, Phatscotty, you've lost it. Relax.

[GreecePwns]

Scotty, I apologize. In exchange for removing the hating freedom comment in my last post, I ask you to remove the nationalistic sentiment in your last post. I am an American citizen, so don't even bring that into conversation.

Can we proceed in having a productive conversation? I would like for you to respond to my post. When you say "far more slippery in its slope," what do you mean exactly? Is this a bad thing?

[Phatscotty]

That's up to you G-pawn. I could respond, but I would just be repeating myself. It still seems like you haven't really listened to what I said. But if you want a chance, fine. I will give you a chance, and it might even be fun!

What do you think I meant by the slope? Take a stab...

[GreecePwns]

Well, the typical response from those on the American right is "if we let this happen, then we'll let polygamy happen." Sometimes they throw in bestiality or other such things in there. Is that what you're saying? If so, how is this true? Why is it necessarily bad?

[Phatscotty]

Well, the typical response from those on the American right is "if we let this happen, then we'll let polygamy happen." Sometimes they throw in bestiality or other such things in there. Is that what you're saying? If so, how is this true? Why is it necessarily bad?

well, that is a basic argument I have heard in the past, and a radical new turn in our conversation, but definitely not what I was commenting on.

However, the slippery slope comes from your constant questioning about why not take away power from the states and give it to cities. After that, why not counties, municipalities, townships, villages.... What that can lead to is a marriage in one city not being recognized by another city, so can the married people have to only work in their own city? Can their partner only share benefits in certain areas of a state, but not others? can a business refuse to pay for 2 healthcare policies if they are in a city that did not pass gay marriage? Will bigger companies relocate to other cities to avoid being pillaged an extra few million dollars a year? How is the state going to handle all that? There are over 30,000 cities. Can we handle 30,000 different kind rules for marriage? Your argument has been peanuts, and that's why I finally threw some peanuts back at you with a comment on how fucked up Greece is.

The real question is, why would you try to confuse marriage to such a level? Is this really what our country needs right now?

[Symmetry]

Well, the typical response from those on the American right is "if we let this happen, then we'll let polygamy happen." Sometimes they throw in bestiality or other such things in there. Is that what you're saying? If so, how is this true? Why is it necessarily bad?

well, that is a basic argument I have heard in the past, and a radical new turn in our conversation, but definitely not what I was commenting on.

However, the slippery slope comes from your constant questioning about why not take away power from the states and give it to cities. After that, why not counties, municipalities, townships, villages.... What that can lead to is a marriage in one city not being recognized by another city, so can the married people have to only work in their own city? Can their partner only share benefits in certain areas of a state, but not others? can a business refuse to pay for 2 healthcare policies if they are in a city that did not pass gay marriage? Will bigger companies relocate to other cities to avoid being pillaged an extra few million dollars a year? How is the state going to handle all that? There are over 30,000 cities. Can we handle 30,000 different kind rules for marriage? Your argument has been peanuts, and that's why I finally threw some peanuts back at you with a comment on how fucked up Greece is.

Your objection to gay marriage shifts, but your motive becomes clearer Scotty.

[Phatscotty]

Well, the typical response from those on the American right is "if we let this happen, then we'll let polygamy happen." Sometimes they throw in bestiality or other such things in there. Is that what you're saying? If so, how is this true? Why is it necessarily bad?

well, that is a basic argument I have heard in the past, and a radical new turn in our conversation, but definitely not what I was commenting on.

However, the slippery slope comes from your constant questioning about why not take away power from the states and give it to cities. After that, why not counties, municipalities, townships, villages.... What that can lead to is a marriage in one city not being recognized by another city, so can the married people have to only work in their own city? Can their partner only share benefits in certain areas of a state, but not others? can a business refuse to pay for 2 healthcare policies if they are in a city that did not pass gay marriage? Will bigger companies relocate to other cities to avoid being pillaged an extra few million dollars a year? How is the state going to handle all that? There are over 30,000 cities. Can we handle 30,000 different kind rules for marriage? Your argument has been peanuts, and that's why I finally threw some peanuts back at you with a comment on how fucked up Greece is.

Your objection to gay marriage shifts, but your motive becomes clearer Scotty.

That's okay. It can shift. There are plenty of reasons and examples. Especially when someone else (greece) is doing the shifting....if you've been paying any attention at all. Of course you haven't.

motive = one man/one woman

Guilty as charged

[Symmetry]

Your objection to gay marriage shifts, but your motive becomes clearer Scotty.

motive = one man/one woman

Guilty as charged

Not an objection to gay people marrying, Unless you're irrationally afraid that gay people getting married will stop one man and one woman getting married.

[Phatscotty]

Your objection to gay marriage shifts, but your motive becomes clearer Scotty.

motive = one man/one woman

Guilty as charged

Not an objection to gay people marrying, Unless you're irrationally afraid that gay people getting married will stop one man and one woman getting married.

It's not about if one couple will personally affect another couples relationship, or even prevent them from getting married. I don't know who has argued that, I certainly never have, as that is too silly an argument for me to even consider making. You are right that is irrational, and I am right in saying that irrationality came from you, not me.

[Symmetry]

Your objection to gay marriage shifts, but your motive becomes clearer Scotty.

motive = one man/one woman

Guilty as charged

Not an objection to gay people marrying, Unless you're irrationally afraid that gay people getting married will stop one man and one woman getting married.

It's not about if one couple will personally affect another couples relationship, or even prevent them from getting married. I don't know who has argued that, I certainly never have, as that is too silly an argument for me to even consider making. You are right that is irrational, and I am right in saying that irrationality came from you, not me.

I can only hold your hand helping you work out your homophobia. The main part is that you took the first step and admitted you couldn't explain it. Kind of a big thing,

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

[Night Strike]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

He doesn't.

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

He doesn't.

Nightstrike, why do you hate yourself?

[Night Strike]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

He doesn't.

Nightstrike, why do you hate yourself?

I don't.

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

He doesn't.

Nightstrike, why do you hate yourself?

I don't.

Nightstrike, why don't you hate yourself?

I would if I were you.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

Natty, you are constantly making hateful allegations. Everyday, all day.

If you want to know where the hate comes from, look in the damn mirror.

[Phatscotty]

Your objection to gay marriage shifts, but your motive becomes clearer Scotty.

motive = one man/one woman

Guilty as charged

Not an objection to gay people marrying, Unless you're irrationally afraid that gay people getting married will stop one man and one woman getting married.

It's not about if one couple will personally affect another couples relationship, or even prevent them from getting married. I don't know who has argued that, I certainly never have, as that is too silly an argument for me to even consider making. You are right that is irrational, and I am right in saying that irrationality came from you, not me.

I can only hold your hand helping you work out your homophobia. The main part is that you took the first step and admitted you couldn't explain it. Kind of a big thing,

I did not admit I can't explain it. I admitted I have never tried to, because I admitted I have never made that argument.

The homophobic argument is all yours pal! And you can keep the troll

[Night Strike]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

He doesn't.

Nightstrike, why do you hate yourself?

I don't.

Nightstrike, why don't you hate yourself?

I would if I were you.

Well that must be why you're not me. I'm just fine wIth who I am. It's too bad that you have a problem with it.

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

Natty, you are constantly making hateful allegations. Everyday, all day.

If you want to know where the hate comes from, look in the damn mirror.

No, but why do you hate gay people? Stop dodging the question.