If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Marcus Bachmann can finally find happiness   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 374
    More: News, Marcus Bachmann, Minnesota Senate, Minnesota, Central Time, DFL, same-sex marriages, interracial marriages, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

31355 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2013 at 7:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



374 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 10:02:39 PM

morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.


Isn't Mitch McConnell already married?
 
2013-05-13 10:03:45 PM

jvl: Almost Everybody Poops: It's nice to think that we can easily just site an anti-SSM person down, rationally explain to them why their reasons for being against it are unfounded or based on false data/studies, but those people are few and far between in today's political climate.

Not true. For example, in California, which famously voted for President Obama and High-Speed Rail while voting to ban gay marriage, you can expect that there will be plenty of people who will listen to you. They'll say "I just don't believe in that stuff."  Go with "it just gives them the right to see each other in the hospital, pax taxes together, and call themselves married. You can still just keep not talking to them."

Going with "this doesn't hurt you" is the easy way since it doesn't require actually changing the person's mind.


Oh I agree with you, the argument that it won't affect you one bit is the most powerful one, but there are plenty of people who don't care even if you explain all the legal benefits they'll get, how it will actually help the family structure, etc.

There are plenty of people that can be convinced, but there are so many barriers that make it so much harder, including cultural, political, and just plan stubborness.  A lot of people associate with only like-minded people or live in an area where their beliefs are homogeneous, and while I think individually most people would see the rational argument, today's political climate makes it much harder.
 
2013-05-13 10:04:46 PM

nmrsnr: And once again, Nate Silver is a wizard.

He put forward a model in 2009 for which year each state would no longer support banning gay marriage. For Minnesota? 2013.


He's estimating 2021 for Oklahoma.

I think that's a bit optimistic.

//God, I hate the politics here ...
 
rpm
2013-05-13 10:06:31 PM

jvl: I would argue that a line must be drawn, and that, assuming the goal is procreation, the currently line is a reasonable compromise between the interests of the state and over-regulated complexity.


Menopause is a pretty damn easy line to draw. Why is there no law saying post-menopausal women can't get married? Why isn't there an upper age limit for women? That's a damn easy way to regulate, why isn't it done? Women between age of majority and 65 can get married. It's not hard to add an upper range to existing law.
 
2013-05-13 10:07:49 PM

Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)


For many religious people it is not a red herring but part of their core beliefs.  They just can't approve of SSM because for them the entire purpose of marriage is for procreation.  Not saying that's a rational argument from a societal or communal sense, but some people have beliefs that they  cannot compromise on, which seems to be spreading...
 
2013-05-13 10:08:39 PM

limeyfellow: morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.

Isn't Mitch McConnell already married?


Wait... isn't this the slippery slope they warned us about?!!
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:10:08 PM

Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)


You assert that procreation is not the main purpose without evidence. Second, let's assume you are right and that procreation is not the main purpose. That does not make it a red herring if an opponent does not concede that an alternative purpose is correct.

In other words, to demonstrate that your opponent is irrational, you have an extremely difficult bar to surmount: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation. That "inarguable" part is why you will not be able to succeed.

Therefore the anti-Gay Marriage argument is merely wrong and not irrational, I'm right, and Hillary Clinton (my fav) is now automatically president.
 
2013-05-13 10:10:41 PM
If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting.  How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?
 
2013-05-13 10:11:08 PM

jvl: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation


That's not difficult at all. 85 year old women are legally allowed to be married. Ergo, the purpose of marriage is not procreation.
 
2013-05-13 10:12:11 PM

06Wahoo: If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting.  How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?


The side that's complaining about all the joking, obviously? Oh, and the side trying to deny equal rights to American citizens. They're (obviously) the same side.
 
2013-05-13 10:12:11 PM

jvl: I wasn't the one who moved the goal posts: you did.  Here's your original post to refresh your memory. Maybe you can show me the part where it says "United States"? Or possibly where the bad man touched you.


The Article in question was about Minnesota. In what intellectually dishonest world did you think I was referring to anywhere but the United States? And moving the goalpost? You were the one that decided to try to change the topic to "all the bad things muslims were doing in France.", which is irrelevant to the topic.

Are you now to the point of concern trolling with red herrings and imaginary argumentum ad logicum, or do you actually have a learning disability where you can't follow the conversation stemming from the article, and your apologetics for the religious reasons which people crusade against basic human rights for gays and lesbians in the United States?

Those seem to be the only explanations for your level of deflection and avoidance of the issue here,  including pulling a situation which is completely unrelated to the conversation out of your ass and using it to try to change the conversation to the topic of "but, but, but Muslims" when the actual issue is that the overwhelming majority of people in the United States who crusade against GLBT issues are both Christian and use their narrow and hypocritical interpretations of religious scripture to justify it?
 
2013-05-13 10:12:15 PM

brandent: Minnesota is all about being nice and MYOB.  It wasn't a big issue.  Nice folks don't talk about that.  Then the fundies got all nuts and tried to push the issue on the ballot.  Yard signs up, preachers in a tizzy.  It all backfired in a huge way when the pro-gay marriage people successfully painted them as just mean and trying to run other people's business.


Ho boy did it backfire. It was beautiful. The Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature, but the governor was (and is) a Democrat. Constitutional amendment ballot initiatives sidestep the governor's office, so they went for both the gay marriage ban AND strict voter ID. Both initiatives were soundly defeated and both houses flipped solidly Democrat. After November 7th we could've just skipped Christmas.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:12:43 PM

rpm: Menopause is a pretty damn easy line to draw.


Not really.
 
2013-05-13 10:14:43 PM

jvl: Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)

You assert that procreation is not the main purpose without evidence. Second, let's assume you are right and that procreation is not the main purpose. That does not make it a red herring if an opponent does not concede that an alternative purpose is correct.

In other words, to demonstrate that your opponent is irrational, you have an extremely difficult bar to surmount: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation. That "inarguable" part is why you will not be able to succeed.

Therefore the anti-Gay Marriage argument is merely wrong and not irrational, I'm right, and Hillary Clinton (my fav) is now automatically president.


people.virginia.edu

We get it. You were on the High School debate team and played Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney as a kid. However, it doesn't make your argument even resemble correct.
 
2013-05-13 10:14:57 PM

jvl: rpm: Menopause is a pretty damn easy line to draw.

Not really.


If you're making the case that marriage has been an unequal institution for hundreds of years because of advances in fertility over the last 25, you're making a really poor case. Additionally, those same advances in fertility allow a same-sex couple to also procreate.
 
2013-05-13 10:15:24 PM

Typhoid: PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

He RUNS a pray-away-the-gay camp. Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-ca nd idates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UZGU994o7IU


:( Poor guy...
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:15:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jvl: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation

That's not difficult at all. 85 year old women are legally allowed to be married. Ergo, the purpose of marriage is not procreation.


I already handled this argument. I said something like: You must draw an arbitrary line somewhere blah blah blah how invasive do you want to be blah blah arbitrary blah this particular arbitrary line is as good as any.

I'm pretty sure there were blahs.  At least, that's what it sounded like in my head.,
 
2013-05-13 10:17:15 PM

jvl: You must draw an arbitrary line somewhere


But why must you? You have yet to provide a logical answer as to why the line must be drawn somewhere. Unless, I suppose, you mean that it can be drawn at two adults above the age of consent in which case I agree with you.

You didn't "handle" that argument at all.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:19:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: If you're making the case that marriage has been an unequal institution for hundreds of years because of advances in fertility over the last 25


Let me stop you there: no, I'm not making that case.

We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.
 
2013-05-13 10:20:13 PM

jvl: cameroncrazy1984: If you're making the case that marriage has been an unequal institution for hundreds of years because of advances in fertility over the last 25

Let me stop you there: no, I'm not making that case.

We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.


Oh, in that case they're irrational, mainly because they don't understand the actual history of the institution of marriage.
 
2013-05-13 10:20:42 PM

hardinparamedic: We get it. You were on the High School debate team and played Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney as a kid. However, it doesn't make your argument even resemble correct.


LOL : )
 
2013-05-13 10:21:55 PM

jvl: We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.


Why can't it be both?

Really. Why not both, depending on the individual. We would classify someone like the Westboro Baptist Church as both wrong and irrational. While we would classify Joe Public who has been informed of the issue only by word of mouth, and has no knowledge of homosexuality other than a few fudge-packing jokes in High School and thinks it's wrong as misinformed and wrong.

You're trying to nail-down something that is so broad that it varies from person to person in the Anti-GLBT movement.
 
2013-05-13 10:23:01 PM

PsiChick: Typhoid: PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

He RUNS a pray-away-the-gay camp. Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-ca nd idates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UZGU994o7IU

:( Poor guy...


True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:25:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: But why must you? You have yet to provide a logical answer as to why the line must be drawn somewhere. Unless, I suppose, you mean that it can be drawn at two adults above the age of consent in which case I agree with you.


Please go look at my original post where I described in depth the kinds of arbitrary distinctions that could be made. Basically marriage is a form of government welfare to a specific special-interest group.  Like most giveaways, government could rationally choose to limit who receives the welfare. Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choice on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.

Original post:
jvl:
 
2013-05-13 10:25:57 PM

jvl: Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choice on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.


It's not arbitrary at all. What makes it arbitrary in your view?
 
2013-05-13 10:26:40 PM

06Wahoo: If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting.  How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?


Wait - you're telling me that someone who runs a "pray-away-the-gay" camp, married to a woman who gets lobbied by Alcoa just to keep tinfoil hat sales high, is somehow more rational and less insulting than a person pointing out that Marcus Bachmann looks a bit at home noshing on a phallic object? And you're pearl-clutching over that?

That's so cute.
 
2013-05-13 10:27:05 PM
Additionally, what makes "only an adult man and a woman" rational? Especially since we've already established that those who cannot have children are allowed to be married, so you can't make the procreation argument.
 
2013-05-13 10:27:43 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.


On the other hand, he could honestly be so delusional based on his own self-loathing of his sexual identity and refusal to deal with it that he ACTUALLY believes that it's his mission in life from God to "help" others the same way he was "helped" to be totally-not-gay.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:27:54 PM

hardinparamedic: jvl: We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.

Why can't it be both?


I think we can all agree that most of the opposition is irrational based on mistaken notions of history or mistaken notions about what the Bible says.  Of the rest, most have irrationally decided against Gay marriage and have come up with rational reasons for them, as humans are prone to do.
 
2013-05-13 10:28:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Additionally, what makes "only an adult man and a woman" rational? Especially since we've already established that those who cannot have children are allowed to be married, so you can't make the procreation argument.


Actually, the whole 'one woman, one man' definition is kinda new in over all historical terms.
 
2013-05-13 10:28:34 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Raging Thespian: LlamaGirl: For sure! My husband and I were listening the whole time and it is so wonderful to see that this has passed! I'm so happy! I can't wait to go to a gay wedding. I love glitter.

Yeah, the only problem is the I'm going to have to buy, like, two dozen wedding gifts in the coming year. That shiat gets expensive, yo.

And they have to be tasteful, so no getting those gifts at Wal-Mart. The homosexuals always have such nice things.


That doesn't have to be the case. Lesbians might love a gift card to Fleet Farm.
 
2013-05-13 10:29:47 PM

GameSprocket: That doesn't have to be the case. Lesbians might love a gift card to Fleet Farm.


Consider sex toys. A quality, lasting double dong is quite an investment, and will give them happiness for years to come.

If you're feeling spend-happy, consider a good sybian for them to enjoy on their wedding night.
 
2013-05-13 10:30:29 PM

jvl: Of the rest, most have irrationally decided against Gay marriage and have come up with rational reasons for them, as humans are prone to do.


Rationalizations are not the same as rational reasons.
 
2013-05-13 10:31:34 PM
For some reason, I thout this link would lead to an article announcing to the Bachmanns getting divorced.
 
2013-05-13 10:32:12 PM

jvl: cameroncrazy1984: But why must you? You have yet to provide a logical answer as to why the line must be drawn somewhere. Unless, I suppose, you mean that it can be drawn at two adults above the age of consent in which case I agree with you.

Please go look at my original post where I described in depth the kinds of arbitrary distinctions that could be made. Basically marriage is a form of government welfare to a specific special-interest group.  Like most giveaways, government could rationally choose to limit who receives the welfare. Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choice on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.

Original post:
jvl:


Your argument assumes (incorrectly) that the only benefit of marriage is a financial one. You are ignoring the other benefits like being able to make legal decisions for your spouse, parental rights, general acceptance in society, etc... You know, equal rights.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:32:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jvl: Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choices on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.

It's not arbitrary at all. What makes it arbitrary in your view?


Age limits are arbitrary. Restricting marriage to two people is arbitrary. Allowing menopausal women to marry is arbitrary.

Lines must be drawn somewhere, even if it is around everyone.
 
2013-05-13 10:32:38 PM
Good, another victory for equality.  Freedom for all, not for *some*.
 
2013-05-13 10:32:54 PM

hardinparamedic: GameSprocket: That doesn't have to be the case. Lesbians might love a gift card to Fleet Farm.

Consider sex toys. A quality, lasting double dong is quite an investment, and will give them happiness for years to come.

If you're feeling spend-happy, consider a good sybian for them to enjoy on their wedding night.


And here I was just thinking about those wallets with chains on them.
 
2013-05-13 10:34:24 PM

jvl: Lines must be drawn somewhere, even if it is around everyone.


That makes no sense.
 
2013-05-13 10:34:44 PM
No, the god-like powers of denial are stronger than mankind's laws.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:35:29 PM

Girl From The North Country: Your argument assumes (incorrectly) that the only benefit of marriage is a financial one. You are ignoring the other benefits like being able to make legal decisions for your spouse, parental rights, general acceptance in society, etc... You know, equal rights.


Sure marriage is a whole basket of gifts from the government.  I simplified it to "welfare" since it's a given entitlement.

General acceptance in society will hopefully become the norm, but it will never be a right.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:36:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jvl: Lines must be drawn somewhere, even if it is around everyone.

That makes no sense.


A line around 100% of the population, including toddlers, is still an arbitrary line.  It's the "I can't be bothered to think about this issue" solution to drawing arbitrary lines.
 
2013-05-13 10:37:09 PM

jvl: hardinparamedic: I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.

Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...


Or all Christians. Hey, we Episcopalians have gay Bishops, priests, hell, our most recent priest at our church just gay married his boyfriend!
 
2013-05-13 10:37:44 PM
Well done, Minnesota!
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:39:11 PM

hardinparamedic: Consider sex toys. A quality, lasting double dong is quite an investment, and will give them happiness for years to come.


It will give them great happiness for the rest of their lives to never speak to you again.
 
2013-05-13 10:39:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jvl: Lines must be drawn somewhere, even if it is around everyone.

That makes no sense.


No, he's right. Lines are drawn all the time in legal capacity. Right or wrong is the question, and why they are argued in court. There is no defense for this particular one. At least not presented by jvl.
 
Rat
2013-05-13 10:43:24 PM
But if two guys get a divorce, how do they decide which one gets the lawn tractor?

© I really do miss my lawn tractor a lot more then my ex
 
2013-05-13 10:48:11 PM
Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"
 
2013-05-13 10:48:31 PM
Marcus Bachmann thread!

imageshack.us
 
2013-05-13 10:50:24 PM

mobile_home_refush: Can they legally get a divorce or is that another battle to be fought?


//sincere question
///awesome headline subby


If they can get legally married, they can legally get divorced.

No, it's not a new battle; gays in California who are legally married in the 2008 "window" are getting divorced all the time; their property is divvied up under the community property laws, and with just as much acrimony as any other couple.
 
Displayed 50 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report