I distinctly remember Jim Hickman having a giant game against the Pirates and Ray wrote on the board:

HICKMAN 8
PIRATES 7

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

I always wanted to burn the 50/50 hat he wore in baseball season.

Or at least half of it.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I957o08voU0

This is a good conversation. I think what Rogan is missing and what Walsh failed to arrticulate is that, yeah, we can define marriage anyway we want, we can set whatever standards we choose, but if Rogan's definition and beliefs widely prevail, you are going to have a completely different country/society than the one you've known.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

America has continually evolved and continues to be the greatest super power in the history of the world. What country would you prefer to live in?

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

What kind of strawman is that?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Why would have a different country/society if gay marriage was finally allowed?

We give extra rights to people who get married. Tax benefits, credit advantages, privacy laws, inheritance and a whole lot of other things. Why should someone who happens to be gay not be able to enjoy those same rights?

The fight against gay marriage is to punish gay people for being gay. Society is better off with gay marriage.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

did I time travel?

where is same sex marriage not allowed?

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

That's wrong. You can leave gays out of it if you want.

It's about the family being the building block of our society. Either it is or it isn't.

And here we are again, where everyone knows this on some level which is why it's such a CFMB taboo to "bring family into it" but gay jokes are allowed or even encouraged.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

No, you can't leave gays out of it when talking about the fight against gay marriage.
So when you exclude someone out of a "building block of our society" how is it not an active attempt to hurt them?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I don't think you- or Joe Rogan- have really thought far enough down the road. You're compassionate people. I respect that. But the compassion of liberals is what so often leads to disaster wrought by their policies. We need look no further than COVID law.

You're trying to position the conversation as a "fight against gay marriage." It's really about what a marriage is, what the purpose of it is, and what type of society we want to build or maintain. Gays who want to get married are simply caught in the crossfire of these societal issues.

How can a gay couple be "a family" when they can't have children? This isn't about "hate" or "being mean." I'm married and I don't have children and I never wanted to have children. I'm not taking what Walsh is saying personally. I understand his point. If every couple were like my wife and me society would be in a lot of trouble.

Walsh was uncharacteristically timid, but he eventually got to his point which is really that the purpose of life on earth is to procreate and marriage is an institution that ties a couple together in the pursuit of creating the next generation.

Sure, I get Rogan's point that maybe you just want a companion and two people love each other and you're just going to make a bunch of money and travel around the world together or whatever. I'm living that. I am that. I don't "hate" people that do that whether they're straight or gay.

But that's a relatively new model and it isn't the paradigm that you grew up in and you can't be sure how this new model is going to turn out. The old model is thousands of years old.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

So you do agree that not having gay marriage would actively hurt gay people?

Most gay people can still procreate especially as this is being treated as simply being about the continuation of the species. I mean, it's not much different than the idea that if we ban gay marriage, gay people will marry straight people and have kids instead.

But that isn't correct. It's as much as it is about shared resources and support systems for the people who get married. If I break my leg, my wife can drive me to the doctor and go to the grocery store. She can make medical decisions on my behalf. We can pool our resources to give us both a more stable situation. We can purchase a house and increase utilization of it.

What's the downside? If gay marriage was illegal, gay people wouldn't have kids together. If gay marriage was legal, gay people wouldn't have kids together. I think Rogan's problem is that he didn't point out the obvious, which is there aren't going to be more or less kids created if gay marriage is legal or illegal. Is the idea here that gay people will instead choose to marry and have kids with a woman if gay marriage is not allowed?

There are still going to be a lot of kids being born and if it slows down it won't be because gay people got married. It will be because straight people changed their behavior.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I'd rather ban divorce

at least it would keep those who suck at being married from getting married a second time

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

No, I don't agree with that. How would it hurt them? We could certainly allow the members of a gay couple the governmental benefits and authorties to act on behalf of each other without calling it a "marriage."



You're getting at the issue and perhaps you don't even know it. The object isn't just wanton procreation. That's why marriage exists.



See my answer to paragraph one.



No. You're falling into the liberal trap of thinking that anyone who disagrees with your modern- I might argue, radical- view is some kind of wacky religious evangelical. I'm not trying to convert gay people. I don't think my wife and I should be forced to have children either. The possibility was there though. That possibility doesn't exist for a gay couple without a third person. So if "love is love" and that's what marriage is all about, why not allow a marriage of three people or four or whatever? Are you trying to hurt throuples?



You're the one focusing on the gay angle. Not me. My contention is that marriage is a particular thing. The institution exists for a particular reason.

Two men can't make a family. Two women can't make a family. We may wish that weren't so. But that's like wishing you didn't need to sleep because you could get so much more done. It's just a scientific/biological reality.

Do you agree that the family is the building block of society? I know you have at least one child, maybe two or more by now. Would you say your children are the most important thing you've done on this earth? Doesn't the fact you have children make your marriage different than a gay marriage, different than my marriage?

Everyone knows the importance of family. But we're inundated with so many anti-family messages that people get confused. But deep down EVERYONE knows how important family is. That's why people here go apeshit if you mention someone's kid in the slightest negative light but this goes unchallenged and no one piles on and calls it "hateful." And I'm not upset about it. What he said is true. I'd just like to see a litle more consistency when it comes to how and when we value the family.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

I would agree but I'm not trying to kill my part-time retirement job.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Society is roughly the same then outside of a semantical debate. This is where Joe Rogan failed in the discussion. If we accept your premise, where gay couples are granted every single thing that straight couples are granted then how does it effect the chances of procreation at all?
I didn't bring up religion at all. It's a logic question. There are two sides. Gay people are allowed to get married. Gay people are not allowed to get married. If gay people are not allowed to get married how does it increase the chance of overall procreation?

There aren't a whole lot of arguments against polygamy outside of the ramifications of tax advantages but that would be fairly simple to get around. In terms of the procreation argument, polygamy actually has advantages that makes it more likely.
We are discussing gay marriage. You too are focusing on the gay angle.

All marriages are unique. I chose what was right for me. You had none. Seacrest had like twelve kids. None of our marriages are better or worse than each other.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

If you ban divorce, you'll increase suicides. I'd have jumped off a building If i were to still be married to my ex-wife.

_________________

you would have been more careful about your marriage decision on the front end

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I don't know if Rogan failed. I think he articulated his position better than Walsh did.

But words matter. Definitions matter. I'll give you a completely unrelated example. Do you ever watch Top Chef? Every once in a while one of the chefs will call a dish something, coq au vin, for example. And they'll go up to the judge's table and Colicchio will say something like, "That was a delicious dish. Good enough to win. But it wasn't coq au vin. If you had called it "chicken, coq au vin style" you wouldn't be facing elimination.

Marriage is a particular thing with a particular purpose.



I think when you suggested that the point of marriage excluding homosexuals was the hope that they would enter traditional marriages and have children the religious implications were clear. That isn't the argument at all. I don't want to break up gay couples. I don't want to bar a homosexual from power of attorney of his partner's affairs.

There are plenty of arguments against polygamy. That's why it isn't legal. And there are good arguments that marriage is a union of a man and a woman with procreation as the goal.



We are discussing marriage.



I'm not judging the quality of individual marriages. It's not personal. It's about what kind of society you want to have.

When you just shrug off tradition and custom reagrdless of whether you feel you are pursuing compassion, you are changing society.

I think it's interesting that many gays and lesbians were loathe to criticize the trans movement because they identified with being the outsider, but suddenly they realize the threat that acceptance of transgenderism poses to their very existence.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

People make mistakes. It happens. I'd just assume eliminate marriage then banning divorces.
All contracts have some kind of out clause.

_________________

Once again, if the idea is that gay couple will be given every single right of a straight couple then how is there any effect on procreation in the overall society?

If the idea is that society will break down from gay marriage then the attempt here is to see why. When you've already granted gay people marriages but we aren't going to call them marriages then it seems like any value is minimal.
So procreation by society will not be effected in the slightest.

Procreation is more likely as a whole with polygamy.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

there was a youtube comment (amazingly not shitposting) that actually succinctly pointed out walsh's fatal flaw in his argument: he mentioned everything about what made marriage important *except* he left out God, which is basically what the institution of marriage is based on. christian rhetoric, which he believes in, would shut down the argument for gay marriage in that it could never be identified in God's eyes as legitimate. that's what christian law marriage is.

someone we know is a fundamentalist-type (except also a hypocrite in this are, since he had premarital sex), basically said my wife and i being married was not legitimate because we weren't married by a priest in a church. were it up to him, we would not be called married but something else.

that's what they would say about a gay couple. "civil union". not marriage.

i'm surprised walsh, claiming to be so devout, wouldn't have gone down this path in his argument because it's basically the whole crux of it. you are married to serve God's purpose. if you can't bear children, it doesn't mean you can't still serve God. but that has to be your sole purpose in marriage. that's why you don't have sex until marriage.

Rogan's point to me was well taken and the whole argument was pretty tame. that's what made it watchable, and that's why I'm a fan of his format.

Rogan also seemed to actually know what he was talking about in this case.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Your attack on gay, lesbian, and trans married people is weak. For starters, MANY gay, trans, and lesbian folks have kids. Either biological or adopted. You aren't being critical of people like yourself who are in a traditional marriage, but don't have kids. Either because you couldn't produce them or chose not to. Also, I doubt Mrs JORR would accept that you all don't have a family because you don't have children.

Edit: Atheist JORR fighting for the sanctity of marriage and apparently to annul his marriage is something.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Florida

Great state. Just don't retire too close to the coast.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I have made no "attack" on anyone. But you're making one on me. That's fine though.

The discussion is about marriage and what it is and why it exists at all.

I have obviously judged myself in the course of the discussion. And I'll state once again, if everyone were like my wife and me the future wouldn't look too bright.

Finally, I don't think the existence of God has to enter into the discussion.

I'm arguing that the point of marriage is as a platform for stable families within which to raise children. As gays and lesbians can't have children there is no need for them to marry.

What do you think the point of marriage is?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Commitment, perhaps?

Why though? Obviously commitment is important in a family where children are raised.

Fidelity doesn't exist in far too many straight marriages but it's almost nonexistent in gay relationships. Where is the commitment? Why are we pretending that these things are equivalent?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Simple Frank is here to educate you again. There are MANY straight people who cannot have children through natural means as well.

A woman beats ovarian cancer when she's 23, and JOrr says there is no need for her to marry five years later because she can't have kids. Wow.

_________________

Security and asset management. It is primarily a business transaction of shared responsibility. You can pool your resources for each others benefit. When someone is sick or injured the other person has the expectation of helping them through it. It does help to be married if you plan to have kids as the same benefits make raising a child roughly 50% easier(shout out to all the single mothers out there on Fathers Day!).

Love is great and all but you don't need marriage to be in love and obviously marriage does nothing to guarantee that love will continue.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!