There'll be no defense of this indefensible garbage, but people will keep on being self-righteous and supporting the blokes who demand it come election day.

Because if you KNOW you're right, you're not intellectually obligated to know anything about what you're right about! As long as you're SURE, what's the worst that could happen!? You're suuuuure it's not THAT bad! A necessary cost!

Yes, rule #13 certainly technically applies to some of the content of this thread.

But I'm simply posting here because all of the official channels (and more) are broken or nonexistent, Gwynedd. I went to #mod and they kicked me and referenced rules which didn't apply and vaguely suggested incomplete procedure (PMing a mod, who knows which) which did not answer my simple question either (one eventually PMed me, though it didn't help).

I understand that decisions cannot be challenged, regardless of merits or lackthereof. And I understand that such content as this is not supposed to be posted to the forums--but included in rule #13 is referenced the FAQ and methods of contacting mods, all of which have failed to answer my simple and reasonable question in this case.

Just as parts of this thread aren't technically supposed to be here, mods are technically supposed to give reasonable information, not kick people for asking reasonable questions, or spam them with nonsensical (irrelevant) references and snide remarks. Included in the rules is also mod contact information. I've tried what's listed in the FAQ only to be spammed and harassed. I've tried the email address given with the ban and the additional one I acquired from #mod, after being harassed, only to be ignored.

I just wanted to know what content was judged in violation of the rules. That's it.

I understand that I cannot post anything about my judgement of this decision to the forums. I'm not objecting to that.

It's not a lot to ask. I can hardly be expected to avoid future violations when I honestly have no idea what was judged objectionable in this instance. What I'm asking is simply the means to avoid such infractions in the future. Surely this is desirable, yet my simple question remains unanswered.

Completely refusing to even tell me what supposedly violated the rules isn't just bizarre, it's a de-facto statement that all rules and judgements are [and are intended to be] completely arbitrary. I presume that this is not intended to be the case, thus the opening question in my original post: Is there any way of finding out why you've been banned from the forums? This question does not violate rule #13, and can be answered without any references to this individual case (which can be edited out). This thread has a legitimate question and purpose outside of any violations of rule #13.

I've tried all the official channels listed in the rules and the FAQ they reference. I've tried two email addresses on top of this. There are no more official channels to exhaust, so I posted here. If the answer to my question here is "No, there's no way for you to know what was judged objectionable," and the answer to my original question is "Who cares what violated what, we just do whatever we want," this thread's lock/deletion and continued silence in response will answer all of my questions, albeit indirectly, soon enough.

The term "cake" does not specify any number of individual cakes, [TI] Wendy, therefore we have no reason to presume the singular.

The article "a," specifying the singular, does not appear in the saying.

The very fact that cake is consumed in servings which bear no relation to the size of the cake suggests, on top of this, that the number of whole cakes is not important.

Ask a man eating cake his opinion on this equivocation. He'll ignore you and keep eating cake.

When you say that TOS agreements might place clients in danger of incurring damages by voicing grievances, would you like to provide us with an example or few of whatever you're talking about?

Can you give us a single example of TOS which include nondisclosure agreements in which the provider of the product/service has a virtual monopoly of that market and can sue over criticism?

What are you talking about?

Why should we care how anybody rates on that scale?

Tax return problem?

Obama is just waging class warfare in the hopes that enough Amerikans are dumb enough to vote on jealousy. Romney's campaign is sitting quiet, as usual, precisely because it's not pressing them hard.

RisingDown,

"What I mean, V. Kemp, in regards to marriage not intrinsically being connected to reproduction is that, although statistically the two hold corrolation to one another, logically this does not always have to be correct."

Their connection is inherent, not just statistical.

"Therefore one cannot equate marriage to reproduction (as this would imply that they logically are direct consequences of one another)."

That one does not absolutely/necessarily lead to the other does not negate the direct and inherent connection between the two.

"Marriage is not a primary variable on which reproduction depends, nor is the opposite true. The notion that marriage and reproduction are directly linked and therefore that marriage is solely to reproduce is a false one."

That marriage is not necessary for reproduction does not equate with a diminished role of reproduction inherent in marriage. Reproduction and marriage are inherently linked. Platonic relationships of the good don't result in children. The sexual relationships of homosexuals do not result in children. The sexual relationships of heterosexuals (who can choose to get married) do. Oh look, that's the one which can be marriage: A commitment to become family, coincidentally (hint: irony) also the sole type of relationship which can create family. It's got a unique title and it's got a unique function.

Paininside,

It's a fact that the word should be redefined? Okay then. Strong argument.

That things change is no argument for changing any particular thing. That medicine has changed from a thousand years ago doesn't mean we should change healthy diets rich in fruits and vegetables.

"your the one forcing us your opinion of a defenition of mariage."

I'm simply using it to mean what it's always meant: A term for the committed relationships of men and women who become family for all intents and purposes. Relationships which, by form, cannot create families like this are fundamentally different relationships.

There's no reason to call fundamentally different relationships by the same term which is specific to another type of relationship.

"when that majority is in favor of gay mariage, what wil happen to your arguments then? "

They will remain unchanged. Words have meaning. This word currently means something. It's a unique word for a unique relationship. Broadening its meaning, rather than institutionalizing a new word or phrase as desired, is damaging to our language and insulting to our intelligence. We're not too stupid to use specific words for specific relationships. There's nothing wrong with describing different things with different words. It's only logical.

I have little religious to say about "gay rights" (lulz it sounds silly. cause the rights are gay. teehee) so I will bow out now. Gay people are human beings. They should have all the rights of other human beings. This is my religious belief on the topic, in keeping with the ideal of justice and equality before god and law on earth. If gay people want to marry people of the opposite sex in the intimate/romantic/family (not incest!)/family-creating sort of relationship which is marriage, they should have that right.

"It is however not necessary for the man and woman to be connected to each other with vows exchanged in marriage for them to remain together, nor does marriage ensure that they will remain together forever."

It's still connected. It's still related.

"Then again some people marry because they feel the need to do so, simply because they love each other. Love holds priority, children and reproduction being the result of their relationship rather than their marriage."

Love's the reason they have kids too. It's still connected. It's still related.

The love that holds priority is a certain type of love with a certain type of end. Homosexuals are biologically incapable of achieving this end.

The only way heterosexual sexual love (the kind of love which leads to marriage) DOESN'T result in children is if significant measures are taken to prevent it or medical inability prohibits it. This type of love naturally leads to children.

This is intrinsically tied in to the perpetuation of our species. This makes it a pretty big deal. It's not a minor detail. It's a huge difference between heterosexual marriage and the function is performs in society and homosexual relationships.

The claim that marriage is not in any way related to sexual relations is just bizarre and nonsensical. Subsequently, the claim that marriage is not in any way related to procreation is just bizarre and nonsensical.

There's a lot more context to marriage than the overly-simplistic understand of "love." "Marriage" has never been used to describe all types of love with all types of purposes. Okay, by a few individuals. But not by the other tens of billions.

I hate arguments that words need to be redefined so somebody can feel the way they want. People need to learn to accept the world the way it is. No, two men can't create a baby. No, two women can't create a baby. It doesn't mean anyone has to hate themself, kill themself, or not do what makes them happy. Demanding a term that describes the sort of relationship which creates children be applied to relationships which cannot create children is just a bizarre protest again nature.

"Here I find that you make a rather strange conclusion. If marriage is intrinsically just simply the union of man and woman, why does the ability to reproduce (by form, as you stress out) have to be a logical consequence of this union? Using the wording "it just so happens" implies that the possibilty to reproduce is just a nifty by product to a union between a man and a woman, and not necessarily to marriage."

I'm not sure if I am permitted by the forum rules to inform you where babies come from.

I find claims of no knowledge of the connection between sex and procreation quite shocking and ignorant. It sounds like people are following some bizarre ideology leading them to believe there's nothing unique about the love between a man and a woman which can create a child, or that children are best raised by both.

I have enough to eat it for the rest of my life and never run out. Therefore, I can!

RisingDown,

Marriage is linked to reproduction because sex is linked to reproduction.

The logical connection between marriage and children is that every study ever done has shown that having both of their parents around offers many benefits to children. As it turns out, men and women committed to one another and their offspring are what's best for their offspring.

Marriage is based on this logical commitment for the sake of childbearing. As it turns out, healthy people who find suitable mates tend to enjoy not only committing to them, but having kids and committing to their family as well. Who knew.

Redefining the word "marriage" to mean something that it never has would not bestow social position. Many people would still believe that homosexuality is dysfunctional. Redefining a word won't change minds any more than it will enable homosexuals to procreate.

Unless any ancient people ever used the same word for marriage to describe homosexuals, it's already been well-defined. I do not enjoy these linguistic acrobatics!

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It just so happens that such a union is capable of creating children and families. This differs from homosexual unions, which are not marriages capable of creating families. If you have examples of people referring to homosexual relations as marriages in history, I'd love to hear them. Because those relationships just don't serve the same function. They don't have the same status because they're not of the same sort or capacity or purpose.

I'm not sure what you're basing "widely practised" on. There were plenty of weirdo barbarians back in the day, but that didn't make them the norm.

You're right, BiefstukFriet: Sex isn't related to sexual reproduction. And marriage has nothing to do with sexual partners. I was tooootally coming out of left field pretending they were connected!

Okay, then look at it like this:

Marriage is a club for people who can, by form (that is, not counting injuries/diseases), procreate.