Range_This11

I'll hold back some snarky comments about the government's interest in children's well-being. If there is an interest it is what you said, that it is for couples to stick together. I don't think their interest is in the actual procreation, just that couples who have children--whether adopted or not--stick together.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Your argument was that traditional marriage was for procreation. The role of government has nothing to do with that argument.

Wild are playing well, surprisingly.

Nope, and there doesn't need to be. Just because a heterosexual married couple cannot procreate at a single instance in time doesn't mean they'll be unable to procreate in the future, unlike homosexuals which by definition cannot procreate. Here's another interesting article I found. http://www.businessi...arriage-2012-11 You totally disregarded the historical argument I made for the evolution of marriage, which was the strongest point I made.

Iginla traded to the Penguins???

It's not a compelling case against homosexual marriage, it's the case for traditional families. My point is that over the past 100 years, laws have been passed to give incentives for married people to stick together in order to strengthen families. The underlying assumption is that one parent will work, and the other parent will stay at home with the kids raising them. The laws make it easier for families to live under a single income. The point is that there are civil unions which grant homosexual couples many of the same protection as marriage, but not all of them. Homosexuals want "marriage" because they want all the benefits of marriage; I'm arguing that these benefits of marriage aren't really applicable to homosexual couples because they can't procreate. When these laws were passed giving bonuses to marriage, they had the intent of helping and protecting children by keeping their parents together. They weren't passed trying to make two classes of people. Another thing that is irksome is the fact that pretty much everywhere in the U.S. recognizes civil unions, which is the same thing as marriage without the heterosexual part. There are still benefits civil unions don't receive that marriages do, but that's because marriage is meant for procreation and raising families, and civil unions are meant for people that are devoted to one another. A simple counterpoint to the "marriage is for procreation" argument is that there are plenty of young couples that have the inability to procreate, yet we allow them to marry. Many couples (including a couple in my family) have been trying for over 10 years without luck. They are still married legally and enjoy all the benefits. Are you prepared to implement a test for those types of couples? You are absolutely right that traditionally the marriage has been for procreation. However, our social mores about sex and marriage have changed drastically not just in the last 10 years, but in the last two centuries. Up until the early 20th century, the primary occupation of Americans was farming. My great grandfather was one of 17 brothers and sisters. So, the argument that traditional marriage was based on procreation is correct. In the 21st century, though, the average American has no need for 17 children and even the farmer has no need for that many. Marriage has evolved from a pragmatic practice (exchange of property, creation of children for work) to an emotional practice. We emphasize love and commitment in our vows, not who gets how many cows. In fact, I would argue that homosexual marriage is a great asset to America and the world. There are over 7 billion people on this planet and we are depleting our resources. If we continue to procreate, we increase our population exponentially. Eventually we are going to run out of food and water. Thousands, if not millions, of children in America and across the world need homes and families. Now, you may argue that homosexual couples can still adopt without traditional marriage and that when DOMA was created, the intent was not to create another class of citizens. I would agree with you, but the social landscape of America has changed drastically. It is absolutely imperative that our laws reflect these changes. Excluding homosexual couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause, and you know that.

See the article, there is a connection between poverty and single parenting. http://www.policymic...live-in-poverty Basically what this article boils down to is that two incomes are better than one for economic stability. That is a total no-brainer. However, we would do well to remember that Americans do not always make life choices based on economic factors, and even when they do, the decisions are not always rational economic decisions. If that is the crux of the author's argument--and that article is a few statistics with a lot of conservative opinion interpretation--then I fail to see how it is a compelling case against gay marriage, though I'm not sure that's what you're trying to get at. Wouldn't two earners, homosexual or not, be beneficial to a child's economic well-being?

Brief history lesson. The government realized that it was beneficial for society to have the nuclear family as the individual unit. So they put tax incentives among other reasons for people to get married and to stay married. Each of these incentives were rigorously debated and took a long time to bring into law. Fast forward to now. Homosexual rights and "marriage equality" are only about the quickest way to get the same money. The quickest way to get homosexual couples the same incentives is to redefine marriage to include homosexuals. If there was no incentive to being in a marriage, I firmly believe this would be a non issue. While I disagree with the principles of social engineering, many of societies ills come from the breakdown of the traditional family. Not going to cite statistics, but it's easy to find that children in families with single or divorced parents do much worse than children with both parents. Also the majority of welfare money is spent on families with single parents. It's also easy to see the correlation between poverty and crime rates, etc. My parents divorced after 23 years of marriage when I was in 8th grade and it was the best thing that has happened to my family. Both my parents have remarried and are happy and I am closer to my sister, mother, and father than I ever was growing up. Both my sister and I are college graduates and I will be entering a graduate program in the fall (as you know). I don't think that marriage statistics necessarily predict a child or family's economic success.

That we have justices like Scalia on the court doesn't help.

Big day for gay marriage advocates. The SCOTUS takes up the case this week!

Laying some out and cutting it on the bread board with a pizza cutter works really well too. http://www.shugarysw...ookie-dough-dip Behold. I have made it and it is fantastic.

When I had less responsibilities in life, there was really no limit to the amount of time I spent here. Now things are a lot different.

I actually just rewatched this last night. I saw it when it came out but totally forgot what the conclusion of the movie was (elevator scene) so I was on the edge of my seat. Some of the shots were a bit sloppy and the accents were a little ridiculous, but it was a great film overall.

I'm always watching films so I will give a list of the latest ones I've seen. Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)--I really enjoyed this film and probably because it was based on a play. Mostly set in one room (sort of like 12 Angry Men), and relies on quick dialogue to tell the story. The Master (2012)--The first time I watched it, I felt a little let down, but after watching it the next day I absolutely fell in love with it. Joaquin Phoenix should have won Best Actor and this should have been nominated for Best Picture. It is one of the best film adaptations of Freud's Id, Ego, and Superego theory I have seen. P. T. Anderson always comes out with spectacular films. Argo (2012)--I was entertained, I suppose. Seemed like just another mindless Hollywood film. Average acting and too much facial hair. This was definitely not deserving of the Best Picture award. Amour (2012)--I am a big fan of Michael Haneke, but Amour was not his best film. It was very timid compared to his others (Piano Teacher comes to mind), but I still very much enjoyed the simple but compelling story.

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. I simply think that paying someone to have sex with you is wrong. Whether it is through a regulated system or through the black market, it strikes me as wholly disgusting. I firmly believe people enter prostitution out of desperation and as a means to an end. I think research into what truly drives people into prostitution--and fixing that--would be a better allocation of governmental resources than regulating the industry.

Some might argue that pornography is erotic art (see the director's character in Boogie Nights). It is created for viewing pleasure and the participants are definitely acting. If you think that the women in those videos are actually having screaming orgasms 100% of the time, then you are quite mistaken. They act, are recorded, and the videos are produced and distributed through different mediums. Furthermore, I doubt that prostitutes or those working in brothels consider sex a form of payment. Perhaps the extremely high-paid escorts do if they encounter a good-looking and wealthy customer, but I would guess that most prostitutes do not enjoy fat, sweaty, old strangers humping them day in and day out. The difference still remains. Sexual enjoyment--for the person paying the prostitute--is not hard currency (heh) and cannot be spent or saved. Only one person of the two engaged in a sexual encounter is receiving money in a brothel or on the street corner.

Not necessarily. One of the people is often also the producer and so isn't being paid directly for having sex. The point Rpg is making is that in both cases a woman is being paid to have sex, but pornography is legal. I'm not entirely sure why though. No one has ever really been able to articulate the difference to me without it circling back around to prostitution. I understand exactly what was said, but if both parties are being paid for the act, whether directly or indirectly, then it is not prostitution.

Screw that.

Pornography is quite different than prostitution. In the pornography industry, both participants are (hopefully) being paid, but they are not paying each other for the sexual act. Comparing gay marriage to prostitution isn't a very good comparison. Prohibiting gay marriage is wrong because our laws say that heterosexual couples can marry, but homosexual couples cannot. It's a matter of discrimination based on sexuality. We are not saying that "x" group of prostitutes can legally sell their bodies to another person, but "y" group cannot. saying "gays can't marry while straight people can" equates to "prostitutes cant have sex for money while pornstars can" in my book. it's still a discrimination based on sexuality, the only difference is orientation(preference) verse sexual feedom. Remember: the only difference between a hooker and a pornstar is a camera. Then you have missed my point entirely. Let me spell it out for you again so you may understand: Prostitution=one person soliciting sex, another paying for sex. Pornography=two people being paid to have sex by another party who then produces the act for entertainment value. They are entirely different things. Clever sayings do not equate the two.

Pornography is quite different than prostitution. In the pornography industry, both participants are (hopefully) being paid, but they are not paying each other for the sexual act. Comparing gay marriage to prostitution isn't a very good comparison. Prohibiting gay marriage is wrong because our laws say that heterosexual couples can marry, but homosexual couples cannot. It's a matter of discrimination based on sexuality. We are not saying that "x" group of prostitutes can legally sell their bodies to another person, but "y" group cannot. I don't think it truly matters where a person gets drugs from, as long as he or she can get them. And frankly, I don't care if people choose to use drugs. Is your friend embarrassed that his mother was an erotic dancer? Does he share that freely and proudly with others in his social cohort? My guess would be that he does not. Being a stripper is a far cry from being a prostitute. That is, unless the dancer takes his/her customers to the RV or the backroom.

Anything that is subject to law is in the hands of bureaucracy, but trying to regulate it subjects it to even more bureaucracy. I'm not trying to impose family values on anyone here. My point was that a daughter or son who turns to prostitution will probably be less likely to be accepted by his or her family. A husband or wife who engages in prostitution will probably cause harm to the marriage as well as subject the hypothetical children to social embarrassment. It can also pose serious health concerns to the community. Not only that, but many people enter prostitution as a means for paying for a drug addiction. I use drugs myself (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana) so I'm being slightly hypocritical here, but I think we all know that heroine, crack, and meth are commonly used by prostitutes. Those drugs are ridiculously harmful to the human body.

I'll begin my post by saying I do not believe in morality. I believe situations that require a decision by an individual are presented, and in that precise moment we make a decision. Morality is a great thing to philosophize about on a rainy afternoon, or late at night when the lava lamp is on, but I doubt its role in the decision-making process. Individuals weigh whether an action is "good" or "bad" by their own moral compass in real time. Each compass is attuned to the life experiences of the individual. Universal morality is a politician's term. With that said, I do not support legal prostitution. Most philosophical counterarguments will probably be superior to my justification. However, I have seen first hand how prostitution can destroy a person, a family, and a community. I'm not going to go too far into detail here because I have to go to work, but I will say that there is absolutely no way that the state or federal government can feasibly regulate prostitution. Placing its legality in the hands of a bureaucracy may make people who do not participate in prostitution feel better about themselves, but it will not have a significant impact on how the prostitution business is conducted.

I think we should get the guess the movie still thread up and running again. I believe you were the champion of that at least once indy.