Mark Cuban's afraid of the witchhunt. he might think he is next target of the witchunt

[DutchJazzer]

That is NOT what I am asking.


I am saying this: if we can prove with certainty, with certainty, that a man cannot produce mature sperm, and fertilize a female egg, is this man best off being prohibited from marriage?

how many times i can say this.
htey should get married because the basic requirment for procreation is male and female.
not a fan of invasive test and procdures and privacy breaking concerns. which some hetro sexual couples will fall through the cracks. not a fan of pushing same sex couples throught those same cracks. cus the cracks will get bigger and the "system" will fal apart

 

[DutchJazzer]

Yes, they shall fall through the crack, but when they are exposed, the state needs to have a decision to make, as governments rule with legislations. Rules. We can try to ignore, but if something-- like a tape recording falling in the hands of Adam Silver-- comes into the hands of the government, they need to make a decision as this is how a government functions.

So, when the government hears that a person has 0% chance of reproducing, but he declares the ambition to get married, what position should the state hold?

also i say **** the government. they have no bussiness in this.

we could go hypothetical as now overnments want fingerprints.
later on they will want dna.
later on a complete lmap of genes.
and then they could force heterosexual couples to pass all thsoe test etc before they get married.

incase you do not know i am very anti government.
and government should not stick it's nose into everything.

so yeah the government has no bussiness in certain things.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

nope it is a definition thing.

i think mariage = A
you think mariage = B
3rd person thinks mariage = C
church x thinks mariage = d
churh y thinks marige =e
governments steps in and makes it own defintions ABCDE mixing it all up and vreating an abomination of mariage by giving it laws and such. thereby "forcing" everyone to accept the governments "abomination of mariage"

This makes no f'n sense. It doesn't address my comment in the least.

BTW, the government isn't forcing you to accept any particular definition of marriage. It isn't keeping you from using marriage for whatever purpose you see fit. What it is doing is prohibiting YOU from imposing YOUR definition of marriage on others who define it differently.

 

[DutchJazzer]

This makes no f'n sense. It doesn't address my comment in the least.

BTW, the government isn't forcing you to accept any particular definition of marriage. It isn't keeping you from using marriage for whatever purpose you see fit. What it is doing is prohibiting YOU from imposing YOUR definition of marriage on others who define it differently.

the government is imposing its definition. because they put in insentives and rights and privileges for those who get/got married.

 

[Deleted member 848]

you're avoiding the question, which is cute. I'm sure my inquiries elucidated how leaky, and preposterous your position is on this issue. Which I'll gladly take.

It's a beautiful question, really. Answer yes, and you're advocating Eugenics. Answer no, and all the sudden your argument for homosexual union falls apart. If the government has "no business in things" like you say, then it should in no way prohibit homosexuals from marrying.


Your perspective is convoluted, poorly thought out, and contradictory. Good day.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

the government is imposing its definition. because they put in insentives and rights and privileges for those who get/got married.

IF the government defined marriage as between man and woman for reproductive purposes, this TOO would be imposing its definition. The fact is clear; you don't oppose the government imposing a definition of marriage, you oppose it imposing a definition you don't agree with. If it imposed your definition, you'd be hunky dory with it.

Your not making a principled argument against government imposition of a particular definition of marriage, so please don't pretend you are. You just want it to impose another one.

 

[DutchJazzer]

IF the government defined marriage as between man and woman for reproductive purposes, this TOO would be imposing its definition. The fact is clear; you don't oppose the government imposing a definition of marriage, you oppose it imposing a definition you don't agree with. If it imposed your definition, you'd be hunky dory with it.

Your not making a principled argument against government imposition of a particular definition of marriage, so please don't pretend you are. You just want it to impose another one.

goverment should stay out of most everything imho

govenrment creates more problems then they solve

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

goverment should stay out of most everything imho

govenrment creates more problems then they solve

Then the gov shouldn't intervene in the question of marriage, and people should be able to enter into any marital arrangement they want?? So what is it, free for all in terms of marriage, or some kind of governmental regulation of marriage?

The state has a fundamental interest in regulating marriage, so why shouldn't it get involved?

This whole notion that the gov should just stay out of things; the result would be economic, social, etc. arrangements being determined by the economically and socially powerful, as it has always been historically with, I think, questionable results by 21st century standards.

Are you capable of nuanced thinking? Really, it's not always black and white.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Then the gov shouldn't intervene in the question of marriage, and people should be able to enter into any marital arrangement they want?? So what is it, free for all in terms of marriage, or some kind of governmental regulation of marriage?

The state has a fundamental interest in regulating marriage, so why shouldn't it get involved?

This whole notion that the gov should just stay out of things; the result would be economic, social, etc. arrangements being determined by the economically and socially powerful, as it has always been historically with, I think, questionable results by 21st century standards.

Are you capable of nuanced thinking? Really, it's not always black and white.

i agree gov should not intervene.
dont know about other religions.
but speaking from my own religion, it seemed like the conservatives jewish religion, was "forced" because of presure form government and society to accept saems ex marriage.
i might be wrong, dont have all the behind the stage facts. but it sure seems that way

 

[LogGrad98]

This whole conversation is morbidly fascinating and super-tarded all at once.

 

[DutchJazzer]

This whole conversation is morbidly fascinating and super-tarded all at once.

atleast you called me super

 

[One Brow]

because those "negative" labels put me in a corner.
eg racist, nazi, homphobe.
especially if in this case the label of homophobe unwaranted/untrue

Only if you hold to the homophobic ideas while rejecting the label.