<p>
Should that be illegal? Don’t people have the right to lick their own bum if they want to. It’s not any of your business. There is a difference between opinions and rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some grade A ■■■■■ right here.</p>
<p>And sorry, truelove, I was trying to make the point that gay marriage should be a right like the rest of those things. Sorry for the confusion. But</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do we?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There weren’t any strong data; that was my point. Your articles are secondhand information, because the CBO report can’t be found (by me). Nonetheless, it’s better than nothing. </p>
<p>I will rescind my argument, even though I still think it’s a bit illogical that gay marriages would earn enough revenue from one-time weddings to offset yearly losses in federal income tax due to joint filings. But as long as the limited amount of research favors gay marriage, my point is moot. </p>
<p>I think if financial reasons aren’t in play, gay marriage (and polygamy) should be allowed. I’m still a bit hesitant to believe that’s entirely true, though. I hope there’ll be more research soon.</p>
<p>raiderade, hyperbole.</p>
<p>^So I suppose doing things like eating pork which would be considered disgusting by people who keep Kosher should also be outlawed? If one person thinks something is wrong, must it be banned for everybody?</p>
<p>Do you even know what hyperbole means? What I said was not an example of hyperbole at all.</p>
<p>^ <3 Raiderade</p>
<p>ABR–You have full control IF you do not have a certain DSM-V disorder that inhibits or, in some instances, eliminates self control.</p>
<p>I keep misreading this thread title as “Are you gay for marriage?”</p>
<p>No, my term was hyperbole. You misunderstood.</p>
<p>While you can control your physical actions, you cannot control your thoughts, emotions, likes/dislikes, or attractions.</p>
<p>^^TrueLove, clearly you don’t understand the meaning of the word. Hyperbole means it is an exaggeration to emphasize a principle. By stating that licking your own bum shouldn’t be outlawed, I was not exaggerating in any way. I stated that opinions are not reasons to take away rights, like the right to lick your own body.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This assumes the existence of free will, but that’s another thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gay marriage apparently has a negligible effect on the CBO’s future budget deficit predictions, so in this case I’m not taking it into consideration: as I said, I rescinded my argument after Northstarmom showed me some articles that I couldn’t refute with anything solid. </p>
<p>But yes, in general finances matter a lot to me. Anything that takes up part of the current year’s budget will either increase taxes, decrease other items on the budget, or increase interest expenses for the following years’ expenditures. </p>
<p>Which means that people’s lives will be affected if you take on programs that increase our deficit. Other social programs would have to be squeezed, or else you’d need to tax companies/individuals at the expense of economic growth. </p>
<p>Anything that affects the budget affects people’s lives. In this case, Northstarmom is saying that gay marriage doesn’t affect the budget. So, I definitely support giving people rights at minimal cost to anyone else’s well being</p>
<p>ABR-c’mon. Free will is a no brainer.</p>
<p>Still misunderstanding. Hyperbole is what I used, not u! Look the term up.</p>
<p>Everyone is ignoring me. I best move on I suppose. Adieu</p>
<p>Free will does not exist. (This is courtesy of Emma, from PCTYD)
- If a person makes a decision, then he/she thinks about the decision either conciously on unconciously.
2.If he/she thinks about the decision conciously, then he’she thinks about all known outcomes. - If he/she thinks about it unconciously, then he/she thinks about all known outcomes.
- If a person makes a decision, then he/she thinks about all known outcomes.
5.If he/she thinks about all known outcomes, then he/she assigns utilities to all known outcomes. - If a person assigns utilities to all known outcomes, then he/she assigns utilities based on either his/her emotions or his/ her knowledge.
7.If the utilities are assigned based on his/her emotions, then the decision is made by either nature or nurture. - If the utilities are assigned based on knowlegde, the decision is made by nurture.
- If a person makes a decision, then he/she makes it by either nature or nurture.
- If a decision is made by nature, then the decision is predetermined by the person’s DNA.
- If a person’s decision is made by nurture, then it is predetermined by the person’s past experiences and perceptions.
- If a person makes a decision, then the decision is predetermined.
- A person makes a decision.
- The decision is predetermined.
- If free will exists, then it is the ability to make an unpredetermined decision.
- Free will does not exist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>\sticks fingers in ears
LIAR LIAR GOD SAYS MAN LOVES A WOMAN YOU’RE LYING</p>
<p>Sorry TrueLove, I assumed “raiderade, hyperbole” meant you said I was using hyperbole.</p>
<p>No prob Raider. BTW, Raiders are looking up these days.</p>
<p>Get your fingers outta ya’ll’s ears so’s we can debate 'til the cows come home.</p>
<p>how do you debate? one side thinks some non-existent fairy in the sky gets to decide whats right and wrong in our world, the other can’t see why everyone shouldn’t just be treated equally. there’s nothing to debate, religious bigots are WRONG, period.</p>