Same-sex Marriage.

[_krose]

What does the propensity to make a decision have to do with the right to make it?

However, now, it appears that the answer may logically be "yes" in not a few cases...

Did you just answer "yes" to a "What does...?" question? That makes sense.

For example, if policy makers are mulling over the prospect of offering corporate welfare to companies like Salindra, with the intent of promoting alternative energy, it would be reasonable for the policy-makers to consider both the propensity for Solindera to make sound financial decision as well as the propensity for the general public in deciding to purchase Solindra's alternative energy.

I have to say, this is a marvelous paragraph. Three separate, different attempts at spelling Solyndra. Impressive.

And then there's the fact that the example completely misses the point.

[_krose]

By the way, only about 3 out of every 10 Americans have chosen to exercise their right to own a firearm.

Therefore, we should reconsider the right to own one, for the reason that only a small percentage are actually taking advantage of the right.

[_Bob Loblaw]

By the way, only about 3 out of every 10 Americans have chosen to exercise their right to own a firearm.

Therefore, we should reconsider the right to own one, for the reason that only a small percentage are actually taking advantage of the right.

I don't know about you but I have no patience for stupidity--but when stupidity is used to hurt other people--like Wade is doing here--it deserves a special kind of contempt.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Why can't people like Wade admit that they think gays are moral degenerates who don't deserve to have society's "stamp of approval" for their disgusting relationships? This BS about just wanting to help them live happier, healthier lives isn't fooling anyone--least of all people like Wade.

Just say it: you don't approve of homosexual relationships, so they shouldn't be recognized. Being honest will make you feel a lot better.

[_wenglund]

Would you mind providing references for your assertions? I would love to see empirical data backing up your claims since, from my perspective, Heteros seem to be as guilty, if not more guilty within context of your post. - Doc

Since I made no mention of heteros or homos in my examples, I am not sure which "assertions" or "claims" you had in mind.

I intentionally phrased the examples generically so as to not cloud making the simple point that in public policy, including marital laws, the element of propensity IS a rational factor of consideration, not just in terms of cost/benefit, but also in terms of feasibility/viability.

Once we all can agree to this point, I will be happy to consider the examples in specific and respective terms (hetero/homo), and provide documentation at that time. You may find that your guilty verdict is incorrect. Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Chap]

...

Once we all can agree to this point, I will be happy to consider the examples in specific and respective terms (hetero/homo), and provide documentation at that time. You may find that your guilty verdict is incorrect. Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade Englund seems to believe that he is chairing some kind of seminar in an expert capacity, by the mutual consent of those reading and contributing to this thread.

That is analogous to the situation of the pathologically hyper-empathic Zelig character in the Woody Allen film of that name, who when in the presence of a bunch of psychiatrists considering his case imagines that he is the chief psychiatrist.

[_wenglund]

Dude, learn to write. "Thinks me"? You sound like one of those teenagers who thinks it's cool to read Catcher in the Rye, wear bowties, and say "thinks me."

This from a person using the word "dude"? Kind of Ironic.

by the way, for me, the phrase "thinks me" comes from my favorite movie version of The Scarlet Pimpernel.

The stupidest thing about your arguments is that marriage encourages stable relationships and fidelity, thus lowering the risk of STDs.

I made no such argument. I simply pointed out that policy-makers may consider marriage (generically speaking) as a possible solution to the problem of STD's, and that it would be rational, from a feasibility/viability perspective, for them to take propensity into consideration. I made no claims about what the policy-makers may generically determine, or whether their unmentioned determination makes sense or not.

However, as mentioned to Cam, if, once we come to an agreement regarding the generic principle in question, we can latter address the specific and respective application of the principle.

Until then, please don't feel stupid or moronic for jumping to false conclusions about what I actually said. You are obviously not alone.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

Dude, learn to write. "Thinks me"? You sound like one of those teenagers who thinks it's cool to read Catcher in the Rye, wear bowties, and say "thinks me."

This from a person using the word "dude"? Kind of Ironic.

by the way, for me, the phrase "thinks me" comes from my favorite movie version of The Scarlet Pimpernel.
...

Does he mean 'Sink me!', an archaic euphemism for 'Damn me!' ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh3N8vuSb0k

(Edited to add: see at the 36 second mark)

[_Bob Loblaw]

Wade Englund seems to believe that he is chairing some kind of seminar in an expert capacity, by the mutual consent of those reading and contributing to this thread.

That is analogous to the situation of the pathologically hyper-empathic Zelig character in the Woody Allen film of that name, who when in the presence of a bunch of psychiatrists considering his case imagines that he is the chief psychiatrist.

Great analogy. The funniest thing about it is Wade's pathetic attempt to disguise ignorance and bigotry as a research-based effort to improve lives.

And "dude" is a perfectly good word. It's clear and direct--unlike pretentious nonsense like "thinks me."

[_wenglund]

To clear up some evident confusion, please keep in mind that:

1: At this point in the discussion, I am attempting to address the generic question posed earlier in the thread, and not other specific questions that various parties may have in mind.

2: And, at this point in the discussion, I am generically answering the generic question, and not arguing one way or another in regards to hetero/homosexual or marriage/SSM.

3. For the sake of convenience, I have reconstructed the generic question to allow for yes/no answers. I don't think the reconstruction alters the gist of the original question even in the slightest. I only hope the reconstruction doesn't create significant cognitive issue for certain readers.

4. My explicitly qualified statements can't reasonably be used to suggest that they apply to any or all issues.

5. As the author of this thread, and as one who relishes productive discourse, I will at times attempt to guide the discussion towards a logical and more efficient sequence. Please take these attempts in the spirit that they are given (i.e as helpful and reasonable suggestions), and not as dictatorial decrees.

6. Finally, I may not be in a position until tomorrow to give the respondents the respect of a direct reply. Until then...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-