Are you suggesting that a minor, even negligible economic dip outweighs the personal rights and freedoms of individuals?


Why wouldn't they?


It seems like you're upset that you, or other non-gays might get overly taxed in the short term. What was that about money grubbing bastards?

An insult only becomes an ad hominem when used as a debating tactic. I wasn't debating with him.

I perdicted George Allen winning, but it looks like they're going to call a recount, which I think is fair because of the such-narrow margin. But three weeks for a recount?

This goes to show just how divided America is. Had the Democratic Era, Republican era, return of the Democrats, and now the Divided Era.

As for Rumsfeld stepping down: I didn't see that one coming, actually.

Thank god that crazy old ******* stepped down.

I think the Dems actually won Congress, so it seems.

****ing awesomecakes.

Yes. Now we can deadlock lawmaking progress for a few years until Republicans win the presidency again due to nothing getting done.



Well, I think this is good for America, because we're almost 50/50 divided. Which means that 50 of liberals in congress work with 50 conservatives to make moderate bills, which is what most of America wants anyways.

I don't know, Anovis. There's just so many damn extremes in congress.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Didn't you not vote? And didn't you say you wouldn't complain about anything that happened therein?[/QUOTE]That's right. I didn't vote. However, I still hate everyone who voted yes and I think it's crummy that this amendment passed. These are feelings I feel regardless of what I have done (or not done).

To be more specific, I said I wouldn't complain about the politicians that get elected. I don't give a **** about the politicians; in fact, this amendment was the only thing that interested me in the slightest on the entire ballot. I knew it would never pass in this state so I didn't bother to go vote.

I actually voted against the ban-same-sex-marriage bill in my state, even though I don't support same sex marriage. The bill went a step too far and banned civil unions as well. I have nothing against giving gays the same rights, it's that the label is attached to religion, and we should respect their beliefs as well.

We have two states contested right now. The republicans hold 49 seats for certain, and the democrats hold 48. 1 seat is independent - Lieberman. If the republicans win either race, they'll keep the senate. It doesn't seem likely that George Allen will win Virginia - he's down by 8000 votes, with only the absentee ballots left to be counted. Virginia has a high density of military population (The largest marine base in the nation is here, and so is the pentagon), most absentee ballots are military, and the military usually voted republican, but it's not going to be enough to overcome that difference. Virginia has laws that require re-counts if the race is really close, so don't assume it's George Allen being a dick. If you want an example of that, look north to republican Micheal Steele in maryland, who won't concede until the absentee ballots are counted even though he's down 10% and wouldn't win even if every single absentee ballot was a vote for him. The other race (Michigan, I think) is much closer - a matter of 1400 votes. It could still go either way.

So you don't have a point, you just wanted to be pedantic about the difference between "no impact" and "no noticeable impact"?

Actually, it all rest on Virginia.

Which is still being counted...and will most likely get a recount, which will take til like...December to finally announce it.

George Allen seems alright, and I wouldn't care much really if he wanted a recount, because you gotta admit that's pretty close. However, since we don't actually recount ballots, we just recount the results...which would be pretty pointless.

Same sex marriages for some, miniature American flags for others!

Semantics don't save from Stupidity.

You still have no right to talk anything down if you didn't vote.

We got the Senate! Wooo!

So, what I'm getting from KOP_Snake is it would be okay for everyone to effect the economy through marriage, as long as they're marrying someone of the opposite sex, but as soon as it's a marriage between the same sex, it's too much of a change. I stand by what I said, and people who fear homosexuals marrying each other should stop paying attention to society all together and go hole themselves up with their bible.

No, I'm suggesting there would be an effect. Nothing more. Quit trying to paint me as being against gay marriage. I'm not.

My point here is choose your words more carefully people. A challenge was issued that same sex marriage has absolutely no effect on someone without getting into the religious aspect of it, and it having no effect is based on all fact and has nothing to do with opinion.

It will have an effect. Thats a fact. The effect will be so insignificant that its not worth discussing. Thats an opinion.

[quote= Dj Yoshi]Everyone's saying "No effect" because, to them, there would BE no effects felt. None. At all. There would be an effect, yes, but it would be an effect dwarfed by the fact that it's not that big of a deal at all.
[/quote]

Confirmation of my above statement.

[quote= Dj Yoshi] Overly bigoted chauvinistic stupidity at its finest.
[/quote]

Its called a joke, though I could understand how things could fly way over your head.



Another joke :downs:

Its not a joke about their humanity, it would just be funny to have them fight and struggle for the right to get married, only to find that their marriage sucks, but they're now stuck with it. I'd find it funny in my sick mind if they suddenly took away the option for straight people to get divorced as well.

[quote= Dj Yoshi]Stop treating homosexuals as if they're somehow not human. They're just like you and me, except they don't enjoy the opposite sex. Christ.[/quote]

This is just funny. I've not treated anyone like anything. I've argued a small point. Stop going after people who you have no idea how they treat other people.

[quote=Michael MacFarlane]So you don't have a point, you just wanted to be pedantic about the difference between "no impact" and "no noticeable impact"?[/quote]

Thats the general idea. But then some things are more noticeable to some people than to others.



Your first paragraph just changes your statements for the point I was making. Except for one part...



Prohibition of alcohol could be considered about as "small" as the gay marriage thing. You're "legally" allowed to drink alcohol vs allowed to marry in the same sex. Tell me with a strait face that prohibition didn't have a big effect on the economy.



Let me narrow that down to make my point.



You contradicted yourself. More people becoming divorce lawyers means increasing demand in the labor market for divorce lawyers.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You still have no right to talk anything down if you didn't vote.[/QUOTE]Uh, yes I do, and I am. People who vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage are stupid. That fact doesn't change just because one person didn't vote.

Gay people are gay, omg. Senate.

You're getting it all wrong. You should proably go hole yourself up.. bible or not.

What am I getting wrong? You're trying to tell people it would effect them, because it'll effect the economy. And yet no one *****es about the same effects caused by straight marriages. So, it would seem to me, the affect of marriage on the economy is fine, as long as it isn't homos causing it.

I didnt say it was ok or not ok, just that it is. Period.

I made a big long post a couple minutes ago you probably missed. The first paragraph or two should explain things.

Fair enough.

No, the fact doesn't, but your right to complain does. You lose all rights to complain with the simple act of not voting.


No, it's a fact.


Not really.


If it's a joke, it's a bad one, and in horrible taste.


Read above.


Then specify. Little details like that change the impact of statements grossly.


Or I could go after you from what I perceive on your statements of the matter, which, from what I can tell from most political discussions, are USUALLY pretty close to your actual view of the matter.

You seem to like to weasel around and change your opinions so that you don't seem like the bad guy as soon as everyone attacks you. Not only that, but you take the heat off you by insulting others' intelligence, humanity, and overall attitudes.

I was unaware there was another Mechwarrior on the board. Grats.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No, the fact doesn't, but your right to complain does. You lose all rights to complain with the simple act of not voting.[/QUOTE]No I don't. See the post wherein I complain for proof.

i think you guys are missing something here. right now, for the first time in American history, unmarried people outnumber married people.

less people are getting married. this means the economy has shifted because of it. if homosexuals were allowed to marry, it might balance out to roughly where it was before unmarried outnumbered married people, when the economy was arguably a little stronger.

[disclaimer] Ford is not an economist. he is basing his claims on a simplified understanding of the economy, and certain arguments within this thread. he does not claim that what he says is necessarily true. in fact he could be horribly horribly wrong, and if so, would like someone to correct him. [/disclaimer]

Victor's right. Who cares about gay people (besides vinny >.>)

Democrats now have both the House and the Senate.

When you talk about unmarried people outnumbering married people, you're talking about a major social shift. Allow gay marriage, and you'll see maybe 1-2% more of the U.S. population getting married. Even that is probably a high estimate, and it's certainly not going to counteract the prevailing trend.

A quarter of the population isn't even old enough to get married. I fail to see the shock in another quarter or so being unmarried.

well then, if it would only be 1-2% change, it would still bring married peoples back into the majority, as the unmarried to married ratio is 51%-49%

prohibition affected everyone. That is, it was a ban referring to everyone. Even discarding the economic impact, everyone was affected by the law because most of America drank. It was also a prohibition on a major pruduct bought and used daily, not a once ot twice in a lifetime occurence, as with marriages.

Granted that's just how it's different from gay marriages. You said prohibition had a major economic impact, and you certianly inferred that it was a negative one. Correct meif i'm wrong, but the economy was great throughout the '20s until the crash at the end and I know I don't have to tell you that you can't blame that on prohibition.





my point was that the cost of divorce lawyers would never go up because while the labor demand would go up, we certainly do not, nor does it look like we ever will, have a shortage of people who want to be divorce lawyers. And wouldn't that lower unemployment and be good for our economy? If it were to have any sort of notable impact I mean. I stand by my statement that it will have absolutely not impact on the daily lives of straight peple, however I will amend it once. It will have no noticeable effect on straight people.

Even so, a 50-50 division of the population into married and unmarried has no practical significance that I'm aware of, aside from being an interesting bit of trivia. The 1-2% change will make no more difference right now than it would if the division was 75-25.

You guys are arguing about the economical impact of gay marraiges, which may as well not exsist because it's tiny.

Retarded.


The issue has nothing to do with economics and you damn well know it. It's because of close minded, bible-thumping, god botherers.

Gay marriage won't infringe on opposite sex marriage rights. It will not end the world. It will not be the end of the family. Society isn't going to huzzah become gay. Children raised by gay parents aren't going to automatically be gay.
The end.

I just saw this on Fark and it *had* to be posted.

Ah, I apologize, I thought you were against gay marriage in past threads and your statements seemed to imply a confirmation of that.

It's just gone official. Webb wins Virginia, and the Senate goes to the Dems.

BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

So the Democrats won?
Does that mean Bushes ****ty "Canadians are terrists lol!" philosiphy will go away?
I like the border actually being "The worlds longest UNDEFENDED border" and not "The worlds longest DEFENDED border" Really what the hell did we ever do to you americans?

You broke my window frame.


Jerk.

It was worth it.

And you know it.

Nothing is worth having to scroll over to read the end of someone's post.


Actually, I think they have a mod to fix that now...

BYAAAAAAAAAAAH