Your donations pay for the CIH Forum hosting and software.
Please help the CIH Forums by disabling AdBlock Plus on this page.
Forum Home Forum Home :: The Message Board :: Internet Ads
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Youtube does it again! - Aziz Ansari
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Youtube does it again! - Aziz Ansari

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
JustInn014 View Drop Down
Commercial Hater
Commercial Hater
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2013
Location: WI
Status: Offline
Points: 37
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JustInn014 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Youtube does it again! - Aziz Ansari
    Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 11:33pm
Youtube does it again. An ad for some comedian named Aziz Ansari - within 10 seconds comes "people against gay marriage are on dah losing side". Sound the alarms, man the lifeboats, we got another paid and bought "progressive" being dealt out the Benjamins to parrot their owner's propaganda and sell it off as comedy.
What drives me nuts are these progressives who blindly support their ways as if it's the only right way - it never occurs to them the gay movement is largely driven by corporate lobbyists rather than a bunch of magically tolerant liberals like they imagine.

I'm predominantly neutral on the gay "issue" - I don't care if two men want to marry, nor am I fussed if someone else refuses to view their marriage as legit/right/valid. One to their own view, as long as they aren't incrementally hurting anyone else (and no, differing views cannot be seen as "hurting" someone unless you're really that insecure). Ironically, many people who claim "people are different" are the first ones to cry like babies when someone disagrees with them on something.

Can't find a link to this particular ad, but it's out there. Not as common as other ads on Youtube, but it's there. If that fails, look up the guy himself - it should show up eventually.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links



Back to Top
DKS View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive


Joined: 22 May 2012
Location: Crowley
Status: Offline
Points: 2071
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DKS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 7:00am
Originally posted by JustInn014 JustInn014 wrote:

I'm predominantly neutral on the gay "issue" - I don't care if two men want to marry, nor am I fussed if someone else refuses to view their marriage as legit/right/valid. One to their own view, as long as they aren't incrementally hurting anyone else (and no, differing views cannot be seen as "hurting" someone unless you're really that insecure). 

Actually, they can be viewed as hurting someone, as married couples have certain privileges and tax advantages that non-married couples do not. So if a gay couple cannot marry, it automatically puts them at a disadvantage compared to a married couple. So someone can view their marriage as "not right" as long as they want, but trying to actively prevent them from being married IS actually hurting someone.
"I see the sadness in their eyes
Melancholy in their cries
Devoid of all the passion
The human spirit cannot die"
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 4:09pm
 
^  There's the slippery slope.  Those issues would be the same for people in all sorts of alternative relationships that aren't recognized by the state.  Is "marriage equality" (as it's now being called) something only gays have a right to demand?  If marriage equality is truly about "people loving who they want", what about a brother and sister who are in love?  Or Mormons who wish to marry multiple wives?  Who's to say that those sorts of relationships shouldn't be recognized by the state?  Why aren't gays addressing those people's rights?  Shouldn't those people have this same "marriage equality"?
 
I think the only difference here is that there's just not a groundswell for incestuous marriage or Mormon polygamy at this point.  But in essence, those aren't any different.
 
For the record, I'm in support of gay marriage.  But when it suddenly became "marriage equality"---well, that's something different.  It lent a different meaning to it.  And that's something gays should have to answer to.  Equality is equality, right?
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 5:34pm
^ Semantics.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Papa Lazarou View Drop Down
Ad Exec
Ad Exec
Avatar
Formerly Codtaro

Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 7720
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Papa Lazarou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 6:04pm
Thor, I agree with you. Personally, I'm in full agreement of Polygamy. I've lived in several mormon communties in my life and there were polygamous families in each. They make things work and even if their marriages are "in word and life" rather than legal, they are just as faithful and devoted to their family as any legally married couple would be;sometimes more.
 
However, the one thing I don't see polygamists support is a woman having multiple husbands (this is done in a few countries), only a husband having multiple wives. I imagine there'd be some backlash if people tried to support BOTH sides of polygamy.
 
Ultimately, I really don't give a rat's ass about marriage either way, but I would still vote and err on the side of pro-same-sex.
 
I would, however, be sure to verbally and physically assault anyone who calls it marriage equality, because that's just a silly expression that the anti-people can twist and use to their advantage.
 
 
What I find interesting will be in about 100-2000 years from now when we're regularly communicating and living with other sapient species and the war for interspecies marriage begins. Particularly if some of them (and chances are at least a few will) have the same chromosome count as we do, allowing for progeny.
Banana!
BANANA!!
BANANA!!!
BANANA!!
Banana!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 6:05pm
 
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

^ Semantics.

 
I was responding to DKS' contention that certain things would be unfair to gays if they're not allowed to marry.  I said that the same can be said for any sort of love relationship that's not currently recognized by the state.  And now that it's called "marriage equality", there could be others who will use the same terminology.  And they'd be right.
 
 
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 6:13pm
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou Papa Lazarou wrote:

Thor, I agree with you. Personally, I'm in full agreement of Polygamy. I've lived in several mormon communties in my life and there were polygamous families in each. They make things work and even if their marriages are "in word and life" rather than legal, they are just as faithful and devoted to their family as any legally married couple would be;sometimes more.
 
However, the one thing I don't see polygamists support is a woman having multiple husbands (this is done in a few countries), only a husband having multiple wives. I imagine there'd be some backlash if people tried to support BOTH sides of polygamy.
 
Ultimately, I really don't give a rat's ass about marriage either way, but I would still vote and err on the side of pro-same-sex.
 
I would, however, be sure to verbally and physically assault anyone who calls it marriage equality, because that's just a silly expression that the anti-people can twist and use to their advantage.
 
 
What I find interesting will be in about 100-2000 years from now when we're regularly communicating and living with other sapient species and the war for interspecies marriage begins. Particularly if some of them (and chances are at least a few will) have the same chromosome count as we do, allowing for progeny.
 
I agree.  If there can be no argument against gay marriage, there can be no argument against polygamy (or incestuous marriage).
 
The argument against inter-species marriage would be based upon the ability/inability of both parties to consent.  A dog's bark or pawprint will not do if the pooch doesn't understand what it's agreeing to.  Besides, a dog would just pull the ring off, anyway.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 6:39pm
For all practical purposes, what you're saying has no real validity because there is virtually nobody interested in or promoting the kinds of marriage you cited as examples. I'm surprised you didn't throw marrying animals & children in there too.

But as far as your objection to the use of the term "marriage equality" is concerned, like I said, you're engaging in semantics by nit-picking over a minor technicality.

Everybody knows what is meant by the term "marriage equality" without having to get into the kind of hair-splitting you suggest, hence it is sufficient. Besides, in order to have the implied error in meaning you suggest it does, the term currently in use would have to be "universal marriage equality", which is not what they advocate. In order for the term to be as specific as you require, it would have to be something like "gay vs. straight specific marriage equality". Who wants to have to say that mouthful every time they discuss the subject? It's just not necessary.

Obviously, gays are only concerned with their own equality in marriage vs. heterosexual marriage. If they were part of a movement that advocated anyone being allowed to marry anyone or anything else they wanted, then I'm pretty sure the term used to describe it would be more reflective of that.
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 6:55pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

If there can be no argument against gay marriage, there can be no argument against polygamy (or incestuous marriage).


Again, where are the hordes of people clamoring for those things to begin with?

There are none.

But on a more fundamental level, there are practical arguments that can be made against polygamy & incest.

Polygamy could potentially create complicated legal situations that would be too cumbersome & entangled for the courts' capacity to resolve. Incest can create dangerous medical conditions that could manifest themselves in serious health problems in any offspring produced later in life.

Plus, incest & polygamy are just such extreme examples & reflect such a level of abhorrent behavior, that the comparison can't even be taken seriously.


Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

For all practical purposes, what you're saying has no real validity because there is virtually nobody interested in or promoting the kinds of marriage you cited as examples. I'm surprised you didn't throw marrying animals & children in there too.

But as far as your objection to the use of the term "marriage equality" is concerned, like I said, you're engaging in semantics by nit-picking over a minor technicality.

Everybody knows what is meant by the term "marriage equality" without having to get into the kind of hair-splitting you suggest, hence it is sufficient. Besides, in order to have the implied error in meaning you suggest it does, the term currently in use would have to be "universal marriage equality", which is not what they advocate. In order for the term to be as specific as you require, it would have to be something like "gay vs. straight specific marriage equality". Who wants to have to say that mouthful every time they discuss the subject? It's just not necessary.

Obviously, gays are only concerned with their own equality in marriage vs. heterosexual marriage. If they were part of a movement that advocated anyone being allowed to marry anyone or anything else they wanted, then I'm pretty sure the term used to describe it would be more reflective of that.
 
And there are "virtually" no Muslims that want to fly planes into World Trade Centers. 
 
There's always going to be a few that want to promote their agenda.  And the arguments for such marriages won't be much different than the arguments for gay marriage.  That's why they should've kept it about "gay marriage" rather than adopting the vaguer "marriage equality".  If and when polygamy becomes an issue, those who've promoted "marriage equality" cannot suddenly say they didn't really mean it.
 
Of course, they're banking on that never happening.  It may or may not.  But there's always gonna be some activist that will want to make it an issue.  And inconvenience for the legal system might be a reason to fight polygamist marriage, but it's not a very good one. 
 
Then, there's incestual marriage.  Maybe you can argue that it could result in birth defects in offspring, but what if bro and sis are in ther 50s or 60s?  That argument holds no water in that situation. 
 
As far as marrying animals, Papa L brought that up.  I said that the difference there is that an animal cannot provide consent to such a marriage.
 
I really don't care if people want polygamy and incestual marriage legalized.  I'm just saying that, despite what gay activists have been saying, it really is "the slippery slope".  Furthermore (and here's where semantics matters), people who've used the term "marriage equality" can't, in all good conscience, say that that should only apply to gays.  I understand that the new terminology was used to make it look as if people who are against gay marriage are against equality, but at least "gay marriage" kept the issue more confined and defined.
 
 
Back to Top
Papa Lazarou View Drop Down
Ad Exec
Ad Exec
Avatar
Formerly Codtaro

Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 7720
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Papa Lazarou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 11:49pm
Thor, you're misinterpreting. I said when people are wanting to marry other SAPIENT species.

As in, species capable of cognitive thinking, reasoning, culture, etc. "Aliens" if you will. Hence my qualifier of 100-2000 years down the line.

So indeed, consent WOULD be there, and - in the cases of occasions when said species has the same chromosome count as humans - the ability to breed.
Banana!
BANANA!!
BANANA!!!
BANANA!!
Banana!
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 12:57am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

And there are "virtually" no Muslims that want to fly planes into World Trade Centers.

There's always going to be a few that want to promote their agenda. And the arguments for such marriages won't be much different than the arguments for gay marriage. That's why they should've kept it about "gay marriage" rather than adopting the vaguer "marriage equality". If and when polygamy becomes an issue, those who've promoted "marriage equality" cannot suddenly say they didn't really mean it.

Of course, they're banking on that never happening. It may or may not. But there's always gonna be some activist that will want to make it an issue. And inconvenience for the legal system might be a reason to fight polygamist marriage, but it's not a very good one.

Then, there's incestual marriage. Maybe you can argue that it could result in birth defects in offspring, but what if bro and sis are in ther 50s or 60s? That argument holds no water in that situation.

As far as marrying animals, Papa L brought that up. I said that the difference there is that an animal cannot provide consent to such a marriage.

I really don't care if people want polygamy and incestual marriage legalized. I'm just saying that, despite what gay activists have been saying, it really is "the slippery slope". Furthermore (and here's where semantics matters), people who've used the term "marriage equality" can't, in all good conscience, say that that should only apply to gays. I understand that the new terminology was used to make it look as if people who are against gay marriage are against equality, but at least "gay marriage" kept the issue more confined and defined.


You're still just engaging in semantics.

Whether they call it "gay marriage" or "marriage equality" will have absolutely zero effect on any hypothetical future movement or push to legalize something that will never be made legal primarily because there will never be a large enough group of people pushing for it to be a political force.

And honestly, the very fact that you're trying to equate gay marriage with polygamy & incest to begin with, just shows that, contrary to your claim of not being against it, makes it plainly obvious that in fact, you do have something against it, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to sneak such a subtly disguised smear & disparagement of it into the discussion, by associating it with things as abhorrent as those. Like I said earlier, I'm surprised you didn't include pedophile & animal marriage proponents in your comparison. That's what the right usually does.

What gays want is a minor change to the traditional definition of marriage, from that of two consenting, un-related adults, one male & one female, to just two consenting un-related adults, period. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of it, involves a much more radical & outlandish change to the traditional definition, that would never have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming reality anyway.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 1:03am
 
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou Papa Lazarou wrote:

Thor, you're misinterpreting. I said when people are wanting to marry other SAPIENT species.

As in, species capable of cognitive thinking, reasoning, culture, etc. "Aliens" if you will. Hence my qualifier of 100-2000 years down the line.

So indeed, consent WOULD be there, and - in the cases of occasions when said species has the same chromosome count as humans - the ability to breed.
 
Okay.  I saw "inter-species" and my mind excitedly went to a film I saw many years ago featuring a woman sharing tender moments with a German Shepherd.
 
 
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 1:34am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:



You're still just engaging in semantics.

Whether they call it "gay marriage" or "marriage equality" will have absolutely zero effect on any hypothetical future movement or push to legalize something that will never be made legal primarily because there will never be a large enough group of people pushing for it to be a political force.

And honestly, the very fact that you're trying to equate gay marriage with polygamy & incest to begin with, just shows that, contrary to your claim of not being against it, makes it plainly obvious that in fact, you do have something against it, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to sneak such a subtly disguised smear & disparagement of it into the discussion, by associating it with things as abhorrent as those. Like I said earlier, I'm surprised you didn't include pedophile & animal marriage proponents in your comparison. That's what the right usually does.

What gays want is a minor change to the traditional definition of marriage, from that of two consenting, un-related adults, one male & one female, to just two consenting un-related adults, period. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of it, involves a much more radical & outlandish change to the traditional definition, that would never have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming reality anyway.

 
I voted against Prop 8.  That is, I voted against the CA proposition that would've made gay marriage illegal.  What more should I do to show I'm in support of gay marriage?
Also, I stated I have nothing against polygamous marriage.  And though I didn't address it, I really don't care if the occasional brother and sister want to marry, either.  So, for you to say I'm "subtly smearing" gay marriage, is ridiculous.
 
But if the definition of marriage is going to be expanded to mean something beyond "one man-one woman" and it's going to be couched as "marriage equality", then those who support "marriage equality" are going to have to support it in other situations, too.  They can't demand equality for themselves, and then when and if polygamy becomes an issue, say that they don't want it to apply to polygamists.  "Oh, we didn't mean them.  We're against them".
 
Besides, I think the only reason gay activists wanted to dissociate their issue from polygamy, was to convince the country that they're against it, too, in order to achieve their goal.  In other words, it was a political decision.  I'll bet most don't give a damn about polygamy.
 
 
However, here's a segment from an article in the left-wing Slate saying that there's really no difference between the gay marriage issue and the polygamy issue.
 
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
PaWolf View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar
Hoary Ol' Chestnut... doncha know....

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Location: GreatWhiteNorth
Status: Offline
Points: 37148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 1:35am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

 
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou Papa Lazarou wrote:

Thor, you're misinterpreting. I said when people are wanting to marry other SAPIENT species.

As in, species capable of cognitive thinking, reasoning, culture, etc. "Aliens" if you will. Hence my qualifier of 100-2000 years down the line.

So indeed, consent WOULD be there, and - in the cases of occasions when said species has the same chromosome count as humans - the ability to breed.
 
Okay.  I saw "inter-species" and my mind excitedly went to a film I saw many years ago featuring a woman sharing tender moments with a German Shepherd.
 
 
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:26am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

I voted against Prop 8. That is, I voted against the CA proposition that would've made gay marriage illegal. What more should I do to show I'm in support of gay marriage?

Also, I stated I have nothing against polygamous marriage. And though I didn't address it, I really don't care if the occasional brother and sister want to marry, either. So, for you to say I'm "subtly smearing" gay marriage, is ridiculous.

But if the definition of marriage is going to be expanded to mean something beyond "one man-one woman" and it's going to be couched as "marriage equality", then those who support "marriage equality" are going to have to support it in other situations, too. They can't demand equality for themselves, and then when and if polygamy becomes an issue, say that they don't want it to apply to polygamists. "Oh, we didn't mean them. We're against them".

Besides, I think the only reason gay activists wanted to dissociate their issue from polygamy, was to convince the country that they're against it, too, in order to achieve their goal. In other words, it was a political decision. I'll bet most don't give a damn about polygamy.
However, here's a segment from an article in the left-wing Slate saying that there's really no difference between the gay marriage issue and the polygamy issue.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html


Well, you say you support gay marriage, but I detect a bit of an anti-gay attitude with your veiled "put-down" comment about them making a solely political decision. Kinda says "Gays can't be honest about their attitudes & intentions. It has to be phony & contrived in support of some ulterior motive."

Not everybody thinks & operates like Republicans.

But who says gays will automatically "have to" support polygamy & incest just because they started calling it one thing over the other? Who's going to make them? I support gay marriage but I'm against polygamy & incest. Who's gonna tell me I can't be for the one & against the other two? Nobody can make anybody support one thing just because they supported something vaguely similar & certainly not based solely on the terminology used to describe it.

Unless you're just speaking in terms of the debate & leaving themselves open to the charge of hypocrisy, but who cares about that?

Conservatives claim to support religious freedom when it comes to Christianity, but they're against it when it comes to other religions. How is that different from gays supporting marriage equality for themselves but not for the other two things? As I pointed out earlier, gay marriage only involves a slight departure from the traditional definition of marriage, whereas polygamy & incest represent radical departures. That is a valid argument for supporting the one but not the others right there.

As for your Slate article, it's nothing more than an opinion piece by a freelance writer. Means nothing, proves nothing.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Papa Lazarou View Drop Down
Ad Exec
Ad Exec
Avatar
Formerly Codtaro

Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 7720
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Papa Lazarou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 6:15am
Polygamy is centuries if not millennias more ancient than Monogamous marriage.

Personally, I'm finding it more disagreeable that you're calling polygamy abhorrent than anything Thor has said. Thor raises a good point. Sure, it's semantics, but it's those semantics that people far crueller and far more persistent in their narrow-mindedness will use to push their own agenda. Marriage equality DOES bring to mind more of a "Let's take other marriages that AREN'T based upon the Judeochristian standard of one man, one woman, and rethink our views on them."

And I believe that, at some point, this will happen, but obviously not now. And so While, historically speaking, the move to legalise and accept gay marriage will probably be seen as the first great movement towards "Marriage equality", to use that term in to-days world doesn't seem appropriate.

In terms of incestuous couples, I would say that one or both parties must agree to and be sterilised before commencing the relationship.

Polygamy, while abused in rare instances, has been shown to work in theory and is in fact commonly practiced in BOTH directions (Men with multiple wives, women with multiple husbands) across the modern world. Perhaps implementing a small restriction upon the material benefits of marriages so that unscrupulous people won't take advantage.

As for interspecies marriage (Again, I mean SAPIENT species, not Billy-bob and his favourite sheep), I can even see that being a huge issue, even if all these other forms of marriage have been recognised world-wide by then. When it ultimately leads to hybridisation of the human race, there'll probably be huge political parties dedicated to species purity.

And what about the possibility of cybernetically enhanced humans? Will there be laws requiring a person music be 75% organic to be considered human and fit for marriage? And as robotics and computer technology, specifically, A.I. improve?

Marriage equality is a big thing, and looking towards the future, be it 50 years from now, or 50,000, it's definitely a term that surpasses more than we can imagine.

So yeah, for now just support gay marriage. Leave Marriage equality for our great great grandchildren
Banana!
BANANA!!
BANANA!!!
BANANA!!
Banana!
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 1:59pm
I still think you're both throwing a manufactured hissy-fit over what is nothing more than a more official or acceptable sounding way of referring to something that we all know what it is & what it means.

Semantics.


Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 2:47pm
 
Hissy fit??  Hardly.  Neither my nor Papa's posts contain much if any emotion.  Just pointing out that the real purpose of promoting gay marriage is obscured when the term changes to marriage equality.  Kinda like how socialism or communism is now being called "social justice", "economic justice", etc. by the proponents of such.  Another one is the attempt to change "global warming" to "climate change" in order to cover the global cooling theories of the 1970s.  How can one argue that there are changes in the climate?
 
I just think it's good to know what we're really dealing with, rather than blindly going along with these softer, vaguer, more palatable terms.  I try to avoid them on either side as much as possible.  I don't often say "pro-life" or "pro-choice".  I prefer to say "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion", because that's what the positions actually are. 
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:06pm
Using the term "marriage equality" may well serve to make the concept of gay or same-sex marriage sound more palatable or acceptable, & that is likely the purpose of the shift in terminology, but all that business about opening the door for polygamist & incestual marriage is a rhetorical false flag.

Sounds like more of the usual rightwing demonization by association.

"Gays seeking equality will eventually result in all kinds of perverts wanting the same marriage rights as us 'normal people'."

Etc., etc.



Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:18pm
Here is an interesting & insightful piece on the topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-lipp/gay-marriage_b_3249733.html

" Many people confuse the terms "gay marriage" and "marriage equality," often using them in a synonymous manner. They are clearly related concepts but they are not interchangeable.

"Gay marriage" refers to the actual phenomenon of same-sex marriage, the legal union between two people of the same sex. It's something which is legal or not in any given part of the world. "Marriage equality," on the other hand, refers to the equal allocation of rights and benefits to all married couples, regardless of whether those couples are opposite-sex or same-sex. It does not describe a type of marriage. It describes an outcome, an achievement or goal, that being the attainment of equality."


Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:27pm
 
I agree that polygamy's probably not an issue that will surface any time soon...but there's no reason for it not to.  One of the main arguments that Christians use against gay marriage is that marriage is for procreation.  Right there, there's an argument that can't be used against polygamy.
 
But just the fact that the concept of "what marriage is" has been challenged and nearly won, tells me that it will be challenged again.  Once again, it's not the most pressing issue of the day, but to argue that once marriage has been changed to accomodate one group, it will never be challenged again, is most likely untrue.
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:33pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Another one is the attempt to change "global warming" to "climate change" in order to cover the global cooling theories of the 1970s.  How can one argue that there are changes in the climate?


Just can't stop with the little false "digs", can ya?

It must be in the rightwing blood & ingrained in the mind.

The switch from "global warming" to "climate change" has nothing to do with the global cooling theories of the 70's, nor is it meant to "cover" anything.

It was meant to end the confusion brought about by the fact that, one of the effects or consequences of global warming is that some areas will actually experience cooler temperatures than in the past, even though the mean or average aggregate temperature worldwide is increasing.

Nice try, though.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 45561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:39pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

I agree that polygamy's probably not an issue that will surface any time soon...but there's no reason for it not to.  One of the main arguments that Christians use against gay marriage is that marriage is for procreation.  Right there, there's an argument that can't be used against polygamy.

But just the fact that the concept of "what marriage is" has been challenged and nearly won, tells me that it will be challenged again.  Once again, it's not the most pressing issue of the day, but to argue that once marriage has been changed to accomodate one group, it will never be challenged again, is most likely untrue.


Sure, it may be "challenged" again, but it's doubtful the challenge will ever be mounted by anyone but a small cadre that will never have the popular support to be taken seriously or considered anything other than a kook fringe group.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:43pm
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Here is an interesting & insightful piece on the topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-lipp/gay-marriage_b_3249733.html

" Many people confuse the terms "gay marriage" and "marriage equality," often using them in a synonymous manner. They are clearly related concepts but they are not interchangeable.

"Gay marriage" refers to the actual phenomenon of same-sex marriage, the legal union between two people of the same sex. It's something which is legal or not in any given part of the world. "Marriage equality," on the other hand, refers to the equal allocation of rights and benefits to all married couples, regardless of whether those couples are opposite-sex or same-sex. It does not describe a type of marriage. It describes an outcome, an achievement or goal, that being the attainment of equality."


 
He pretty much said what I said.  The only point he made that I didn't, is that "marriage equality" means federal recognition.  But he basically said that the terminology was changed to soften the idea of gay marriage.
 
I don't think that's done to change the mind of opponents.  I think it's done to make the issue more palatable to people on the fence.  It's an effective tactic but, as the writer points out, it's not accurate.
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.



"CANDIE!"