What's new
By:

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

DutchJazzer said:
well cuban seemed from first interview like he was "supporting" sterling. or at the least understood sterling's side. but 24 hours later did a complete 360.
why? because of pressure from the nba and the comunity
Click to expand...

In the end we do NOT know how he voted. I'd love to see those votes leaked.
 
DutchJazzer said:
NO i do not because personally i know a couple who have been trying for years all sort of stuff. and one day they magically got 2 babies :D.
Click to expand...


So if a man has an autoimmune genetic disorder that destroys each and every single one of his Sertoli cells (that mature sperm in the male testes), meaning there is a clinically-verfied zero percent chance of reproduction, would you ban this person from marrying a woman?
 
VINYLONE said:
In the end we do NOT know how he voted. I'd love to see those votes leaked.
Click to expand...
isnt the vote june 3rd?
seriously if you are an owner would you risk voting in favor of sterling. if you think his privacy matters and whats siad in sanctity of his home is his buissnes? or would you just throw him under the bus?
is the voting completely anonymous?
 
You keep dancing around the question by saying "well sometimes a couple can reproduce, so I figure it's best if we just always allow heterosexual union".

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?
 
DutchJazzer said:
again. handicapped people have procreated perfectly healthy babies.
my cousin is deaf, she married a deaf man. their kid is not deaf. and as far as i know (he is now 4 years old) he has no disabilities.

so yes handicapped/disabled/handicapable(whatever they are claled these days) can have healthy ofspring. and even if they dont have healthy kids, it is procreation of live.
Click to expand...

The argument that THE purpose of marriage is pro-creation is a modern-day notion that has little basis in fact historically. Marriage has served numerous purposes over time and continues to do so. Besides, this argument has been decisively rejected by US Courts. It really is a classic example of argument from ignorance.
 
dalamon said:
So if a man has an autoimmune genetic disorder that destroys each and every single one of his Sertoli cells (that mature sperm in the male testes), meaning there is a clinically-verfied zero percent chance of reproduction, would you ban this person from marrying a woman?
Click to expand...
I would not intrude on his privacy. his health is his business he should have the right to his privacy. so i would be ok if he got married to a woman.
and hope he tries like hell to procreate. but in the end if he fails (which in this case he will) no biggie. cus before the marriage he satisfied the basic requirements for procreation(Male+female). its simplistic but sometimes things fall through the crack. dont know the statistics on vertile couples. but most of em (can) procreate.

in the name of privacy things will and shall fall between the crack.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
The argument that THE purpose of marriage is pro-creation is a modern-day notion that has little basis in fact historically. Marriage has served numerous purposes over time and continues to do so. Besides, this argument has been decisively rejected by US Courts. It really is a classic example of argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...
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"
 
DutchJazzer said:
in the name of privacy things will and shall fall between the crack.
Click to expand...

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?
 
dalamon said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
dalamon said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
DutchJazzer said:
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"
Click to expand...

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.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
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.
Click to expand...
the government is imposing its definition. because they put in insentives and rights and privileges for those who get/got married.
 
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.
 
DutchJazzer said:
the government is imposing its definition. because they put in insentives and rights and privileges for those who get/got married.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
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.
Click to expand...

goverment should stay out of most everything imho :P

govenrment creates more problems then they solve
 
DutchJazzer said:
goverment should stay out of most everything imho :P

govenrment creates more problems then they solve
Click to expand...

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.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
This whole conversation is morbidly fascinating and super-tarded all at once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top