I'd blame the US judge accepting the reasoning that a "large beer" doesn't imply a warranty for more beer, just for a larger sized cup cup.

f the mods!

I wouldn't make it a binding format for politicians, but more of an opinion poll. The population is consulted on its tax form (hey why not include some advertising on there, it's a prime location since every adult who is worth a damn in society gets them) in the form of a ranking scheme. Then afterwards the government accountancy agency or the opposition can rank the actual government's budget for the year vs. how much the government actually spent on it. A non binding referendum on your tax form if you will.

Making it binding would be absurd since I live in a nation of leftist elitist whiny little hippy shit ants that would stop funding the militareh and next thing you'd know there'd be an african tin pot dictator with a peepee gun in charge X(

> avogadro wrote:

> yes, i have argued that gay marriage is destructive to society, i haven't argued that gay people shouldn't be able to marry solely because it is destructive to society... i argued that governments should not go out of their way to legalize something that is destructive to our society, esoecially when the destructive lifestyle it encourages is voluntary and would only increase its prominence; an argument where your infertile argument does not apply.

--... which boils down to you arguing that you don't want gay people to be able marry because you feel it is destructive to society (something which I dispute in any case). The fact that your society has never allowed gay marriage so far is just a matter of practical convenience where you don't have to take any initiative to see your wish become law. But this is just a historical explanation why gay marriage would require a legal intervention. There is no "natural order" that mandates it to be so, it is merely a policy choice for a legislator. Your basic argument, to put rather bluntly, is wanting your government to be lazy by not handing out new rights which you personally dislike while keeping around the mistakes of the past so to speak by allowing infertile people to marry. And by the way you mostly focus on infertility not being a choice, it sometimes isn't but often it is (vasectomies and whatever the fancy scientific name for the female body counterpart is), it can be a voluntary lifestyle just like you feel "living like a homosexual" is (as opposed to "feeling homosexual").

-- also the infertility comparison is a one sentence question I put to you at the end of a more substantive post which I don't think you have responded to, namely that gay marriage is not a slippery slope in a modern society (this ties in with your "increasing its prominence" part of your first post, so that's why I'm reiterating it here, I don't agree that there is a danger of a slippery slope by allowing gay marriage, so I don't consider this to be relevant for the infertility question):

Like I said it's not a slippery slope for our societies. In a modern society that allows homosexual intercourse but not homosexual marriage/civil union, the people who are actually gay will simply not marry or enter a civil union, those that do aren't gay but bisexual (or just confused). In the past when homosexual intercourse was actually prohibited and heavily frowned upon by society in general and religion in particular these people actually did regularly marry the opposite sex just to shake off social and legal punishments, but fortunately those shackles are pretty much gone now in modern western societies. None of the younger generations of gay people I know would ever marry a woman just out of some past form of peer pressure. Short of forcing them to have intercourse with women society simply does not have these people in the heterosexual marriage pool any longer, whether gay marriage is permitted or not is wholly irrelevant for the calculation of the actual (voluntary) birth rate potential.

--and by the way many homosexual people do want children and conceive them through alternative means (e.g. sperm/egg cell donations) and raise them with their homosexual partner. It's not like heterosexual people are forced to get children with their husband/wife if they are married either.

PS V. Kemp upon reviewing the last pages of this thread I see you accused me of an irony which I don't believe I committed, which I find unfortunate since I do love a good irony.

> Omega Man wrote:

> um I forget, we somehow brought up the fact that we can drop 108 bombs with just 3 planes or something
i just copy and paste in word til I have enough

next time you can just fire up excell and type boom once then do a ctrl left mouseclick on that box and expand it all the way down to 108

No you just picked and chose something to respond to, you completely ripped my comment on infertile people being able to marry out of the context I used it in. My comment was a response to the assertion that gay people should not be able to marry because they can't knock eachother up and are thus living a destructive lifestyle for society, reducing the overal fertility of society. Couples with an infertile partner also can't knock eachother up and also reduce maximum possible fertility of society. So the argument that fertility as such should necessarily have an impact on who is allowed to marry (and thus our legal definition of marriage) is invalid, because we don't care about it two bits when it is an intergender marriage. Obviously society's desire to have people make babies is a major historical explanation for how the institution of marriage evolved (e.g. marriage without the intention of having children leads to a voidable marriage for the catholic church), but that's simply an interesting fait divers not binding whatsoever for modern lawmakers.

In a secular context marriage is just a fancy word for a stable relation that opens up all kinds of goodies for the people involved, both from the state (fiscal benefits, widower's pensions etc.) and eachother (e.g. duty to respect eachother, to take care of eachother). People can marry if the state says they can marry. Historically the difference in sex between the partners involved has always been implied. As such there should be active intervention from a legislator to change this definition if the people of a nation so desire. But whether this institution is opened up to people of the same sex or not is entirely up to the will of the people. Your own ideas about marriage and child bearing are merely your own and not the universal, immutable principles which some people make them out to be as evidenced by several western nations having legalised same sex marriage. There is no intrinsic moral or economic reason why it couldn't be. It won't turn everyone into homosexuals, nor will society go under because people in a same sex union can enjoy beneficial economic treatment or when a same sex partner has the right to receive alimony from his or her partner.

you don't seem to understand the legal difference between apes and gay people. Marriage is a legal construct. If you're going to clutter the debate you may have well have started fulminating against evil society denying yourself the god given right to marry a banana and poke it up your ass. I wouldn't really know or care since I don't pay much attention to rude people but from scanning your posts every time you put on some more drivel I got the impression that you didn't pay attention to anything I posted you just claim to have put up some uberpowerful arguments somewhere and then you demonstrated you're really just bent on being an ass. I have to tell you I worry for you and I will pray for you because acting like an ass is very reckless behaviour in a thread related to homosexuality. And yes I do see the great irony in that sentence I posted there, I like it (a lot, but not up the ass).

but it's again exceedingly funny to see you insult my intelligence... even if I was being stupid in this thread, and I have been known to act stupid a lot throughout these years, it's kinda rude to play on the man instead of the ball even if you were somehow the epitome of intelligence yourself, not that I would want to imply that you are

kinda, but still better then "life" from season 1

no I've only seen you cling to arbitrary and outdated distinctions

I noticed the sushi bars have actual bar stools you can use to eat, but then I'm not a big fan of eating on bar stools because they are not very comfortable

I would really like to taste chili cheese fries, they sound like a nice combination unfortunately not something we know in Belgium. I would prefer a good BBQ sauce if there is one over mayo too.

that being said there is a huge difference between real mayo and its "dressing" and "light" variants, fries with real mayo are pretty good although a dangerous combination for indigestion

am I the only one thinking "hooker"?