Soxbadger

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) I don't consider Lawson a true PG, he's a scoring Pg if I've ever seen one. He's also efficient and a great shooter, so I think he'd work well with Derrick. Both players would have to adjust their game, no doubt. But so what? I've seen Rose play off the ball before too, it looked mighty effective. I'd like to give Rose a break every now and then too, it confuses the other team and switches things up a bit, makes us more effective I'd argue. Nobody we get is going to be perfect, there will be drawbacks to any player we get. This guy is good at this, but bad at that. This guy is a good shooter but he can't defend. This guy is a good penetrator but he can't shoot. This guy is efficient as hell but he can't take over games by himself. Name me one 2 guard we can get that can do it ALL How are the Bulls even getting Lawson in this fantasy? If the Bulls have the bullets to acquire a starting PG, they would be able to get a starting SG/SF.

Ive seen Lawson play a ton of times, he is listed at 5'11. Who is going to guard the 2 when Rose and Lawson are on the court?

No they need a 2 guard to play with Rose. Preferably someone who is a competent shooter and can drive.

Lawson is a small PG, how does that work with Derrick Rose? Neither are even remotely considered combo guards. I love me some Lawson, but getting him would mean you have no faith in Rose.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Coming soon to FlapShip, my take on guilt free alternatives to Chick-fil-A. It's supposed to be funny and not political. And here it is: http://flapship.com/guilt-free-alternatives-to-chick-fil-a/

I agree, its odd what NBC is doing. If anyone is interested here is our recap of last nights NBC events: http://flapship.com/mondays-london-2012-olympics-recap/

Sometimes I take what I assume to be coupons, only to find out they are Jehova Witness stuff. They usually dont talk to me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 06:08 PM) Ilya Somin fleshes out the legal argument in much more detail here: http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-...discrimination/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/10/sex-discr...-and-tradition/ I understand the argument, but no court is accepting it. Ive been arguing for SSM for over 10 years, in those 10 years, I can not recall any Appellate level or higher court ruling that the ban on SSM violates gender equality.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) That's not a winning argument. Men and women are treated differently when they apply for a marriage license. Being a man, I have the right to marry a woman but not a man while women have the right to marry a man. I do not have the same right to marry a man that women do because of my gender. You do not have to make marriage itself a right to demonstrate that the government is denying it to two consenting adults based solely on gender. There really is no reason to keep arguing this. Men and women are treated equally. Men can get married, women can get married. Its as simple as that. I dont agree at all with the current interpretation, but Im not going to live in make believe land where some how this argument that has lost innumerable times is going to all of a sudden be a winner. Lets look at classic example of gender discrimination: I will hire a man not a woman. I will pay a man more than a woman. This is not comparable. Neither men nor women are getting an advantage or disadvantage by not allowing SSM, which is generally a pretty big requirement for "discrimination". Both men and women cant marry SSM, thus no discrimination. Discrimination means treating someone different, so you have yet to show me how SSM treats men differently than women, when both are banned from the same behavior.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 05:55 PM) To be fair, fixed. About 20 states have done so. Not talking about states, talking about federal law. (edit) I assumed that was implied as every state has different laws.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 05:48 PM) But I thought it's their choice? Law specifically prohibits. There is no law that specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) So could I deny someone some rights for being Christian? It's their choice to not be Jewish or Muslim. Faith is protected. The actual comparison would be something like: McDonalds is giving out free cheeseburgers, McDonalds refuses to give out just plain hamburgers, and eating dairy/meat is against my religion so I cant get the benefits. Or if McDonalds refused to serve kosher products. This would presumably be legal, even though it would be illegal for McDonalds not to serve Jews on the basis of religion.

Jenks is making the classic winning argument against SSM. Every man can marry a woman, and every woman can marry a man. That is equality. Which is why (imo) to actually win the entire debate, you must argue that in and of itself marriage has become a right or sexual orientation is a right, and therefore the govt denying it to consenting adults, is a deprivation of rights. Gender discrimination usually refers to a man or woman being treated different due to their gender. In this case, neither men nor women are being treated differently.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:11 PM) 1) Because it isn't a protected class. 2) I was saying marriage is a contract, not just MPM. Please read more carefully. 3) Who cares which is which? Perhaps I overstated when I said nothing would have to change for SSM, but I doubt it would need to be changed legislatively versus a new rules interpretation or something similar from SSA. The arrangement and the structure of the program still remain exactly the same. Modifying the language to limit it to "first-spouse," however, represents something a little more fundamental than simply clarifying some definitions. 4) Please try to pay attention to what I'm actually saying, as I've had to point out to you several times now that when I said it would be "legislatively complicated," I did not mean that one particular modification to one particular program would be complicated, but that the entire process of modifying every necessary program would be. Simply restating over and over how you could change SS survivors' benefits doesn't even acknowledge my argument, let alone address it. The arguments for it are equal protection and eliminating gender-based discrimination. MPM does not fall under either of those and my comment was to the difficulty of enacting it as a policy. I don't know why it caused you to flip your s***. 1) Just because it isnt protected, doesnt mean it shouldnt be protected. The argument isnt about what is, it is about, what should be. 2) I did read it carefully, which is why I remarked that calling them contracts is a terrible argument. They are more than a contract, you are saying they are a "right." 3) Disagree, changing the law is changing the law. It can be done simply (as I suggested) or it can be done complexly, but regardless laws are going to have to change. And the amount of laws, should not impact whether we as a society think its right or wrong. If its wrong, it should be fixed, regardless of how hard it is. 4) I read your statement fine, you just have brought 0 evidence to the table. You keep saying that SSM wont require law changes, which isnt true. You then said "Well it requires less then MPM", yet the only law you brought as evidence would have to be re-written more for SSM than MPM. So if you want to rely on that, you should have to bring the evidence. My argument, which you seem to not care about, is that it doesnt matter how many laws have to be changed, if its the right thing to do, it should be done. You have yet to address that, nor have you addressed the real point of my post, you are making weak arguments that play right into the anti-SSM crowd. I just dont get why youd make that argument, when its completely unnecessary.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:20 PM) Why would it be? There are laws that give your inheritance spouse when you die. If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing. If we allow a guy to marry 5 women, that law has to be updated in some way to determine how its split (all to 1st wife? 5 equal shares? pro-rate based on years married?) There are laws that give your spouse the ability to make medical decisions for you when you are unable. If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing. If we allow a guy to marry 5 woman, that law has to be updated in some way to determine which wife (or majority vote?) makes the decision. There are laws that allow your spouse to get Social Security benefits when you die. If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing. If we allow a guy to marry 5 woman, that law has to be updated to determine how those benefits are split. Every state already has different laws about inheritance, why is this so difficult? If some states want it per stirpes to wifes, if some want it all to first wife, why cant each state make up their own law?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:12 PM) I doubt this very much because states have numerous programs that are impacted by SSM and, to my knowledge, have not had to re-write each and every one of those laws when SSM was enacted. Well, you brought up 1 area, SSA, and in SSA they are going to have to rewrite it, because it refers to mother/father and husband/wife, and Im not sure how you are going to reconcile that with gay marriage. As I originally argued, its not terribly difficult under either scenario. You are the one trying to create some reasoning why polygamy is harder than SSM, I just think that is a terrible argument, as many people against SSM say that its too difficult to enforce. (now to respond to the longer one)

Of course, I meant the classical "religious" god. Not deism, clock maker etc, which is reasonable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) Why are you being such a dick about this? You'd have to make this change for hundreds if not thousands of bills. That would be very, very complicated, both in practice and politically. That's all I was saying. Because youre not getting that they are going to have to do the same thing for SSM. Literally hundreds if not thousands of laws will have to be changed. Thus, not a great argument to hang your hat on, and since I am very pro-SSM, I want to make stronger, better arguments.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:58 PM) See my response to jenks where I explained why denying SSM is an equal-rights violation while denying multiple-partner marriage (MPM) is not. It is unfair to deny marriage rights based on gender; it is not unfair or unequal (imo) to define marriage as a two-party contract/arrangement. More importantly, it doesn't represent an unconstitutional violation of equal protection. Personally, I'm not necessarily opposed to someone wanting to have a MPM or it being legal. But I do not see it as a constitutional right as I do SSM, and I do not foresee it ever gaining enough popularity to enact the necessary legislative changes. This is one section of one particular example I pulled out of the air. Now find every other impacted program or law and draft the necessary changes. Better hope you don't miss one because that could make things quite messy! As I said, the individual modifications aren't necessarily complicated, but the legislative process would be enormously so. Your argument is all over the place. Why is MPM not a violation of equal rights? Why should I not be able to marry someone else who is already married? Why cant I be part of that family? Who are you to say that I cant be married to a Man and a woman, or to 2 woman? Either marriage is a right, in which I should be entitled to it, or it isnt a right, in which case SSM isnt an equal rights violation. Youre argument is terribly thin, MPM is a "contract"? Well isnt marriage a contract, and I just am defining it as a contract between a man and woman? And technically its fair to everyone, because everyone equally can marry a man or a woman. The second paragraph, you are going to have to do the exact same thing for SSM. Read the code, they define with pronouns and define both "husband" and "wife". If you have 2 men, which is the husband and which is the wife? Oh you mean the entire code will have to be amended, which you just said was to difficult? So are you really for SSM? Because you basically just destroyed the arguments for it.

Just because its so simple, watch: (b) The term “wife” means the wife of an individual, but only if she (1)the first person legally married to him, (1) is the mother of his son or daughter, (2) was married to him for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day on which her application is filed, or (3) in the month prior to the month of her marriage to him (A) was entitled to, or on application therefor and attainment of age 62 in such prior month would have been entitled to, benefits under subsection (b), (e), or (h) of section 202, (B) had attained age eighteen and was entitled to, or on application therefor would have been entitled to, benefits under subsection (d) of such section (subject, however, to section 202(s)), or © was entitled to, or upon application therefor and attainment of the required age (if any) would have been entitled to, a widow’s, child’s (after attainment of age 18), or parent’s insurance annuity under section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974[205], as amended. For purposes of clause (2), a wife shall be deemed to have been married to an individual for a period of one year throughout the month in which occurs the first anniversary of her marriage to such individual. For purposes of subparagraph © of section 202(b)(1), a divorced wife shall be deemed not to be married throughout the month in which she becomes divorced. Wow that took me all of 5 seconds, and a similar change will be required for SSM, if you actually read the code, it uses pronouns (he/she) so it will have to be changed. But I guess thats to complicated of a chance, so now youre against SSM?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) It would be very complicated legislatively to amend hundreds of laws that would be impacted, not one specific example I plucked. The individual modifications may or may not be complicated, but having to first identify the areas of concern and then pass hundreds of bills modifying things to accommodate polygamy would be complex in a practice as well as being a non-starter politically. No such changes have to be made for SSM. Im not sure where you are going with this. Who cares about how many changes will be done, isnt the argument about fairness and equality? Are you seriously implying that we shouldnt treat a certain group fairly if "it is very complicated". ? Also as ive said, its not very complicated. There is a definition section, you merely have to change 1 section. This isnt rocket science.

How is it very complicated legislation? You can just change the definition. http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0216.htm You add a line in wife section about multiple husbands/wifes.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) Being that he is all knowing, for eternity he knew this creep in Colorado was going to do this on a certain date in the year 2012. Which is the best proof of the nonexistence of god. If god exists, he must be all powerful and all knowing (otherwise he is not god.) If he is all knowing, then he must know everything I will do. If he knows what I am going to do, then I never really had the freedom to choose in the first place. Thus, no matter what I have done, god wanted me to do it.

It would require writing a new section, but that really doesnt seem like a good reason for not doing something.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) I don't have a problem with people who want to live in a multiple-partner relationship, but I imagine it would be quite messy legally to recognize these marriages. For example, it'd really screw up social security survivor's benefits. No it wouldnt. You get 1 survivor benefit, if you are married to multiple spouses, it goes to your first spouse. If you dont like that, get divorced.