As I pondered weak and weary
over whether or not to use
a banana bomb I found
While I shutgunned, nearly missing,
suddenly I saw what I had been missing
movement of my worms permissing,
victory from a single round
"Now succeed, My foes confound,
They have been Edgar Allen Pwned."

I know some of you guys can't get in the old senior board, so here's a link to Rob's pictures of the end result of lots and lots of effort by Stevie:

http://tinyurl.com/lzk5yg

Mine's totally first

So far, the pro gay side have said that gay marriage is a civil right. Huh. Marriage is a civil right, yes. But marriage is heavily regulated. Homosexuals aren't the only people who cannot marry the person of their choosing. For example, in around half of all American states, you cannot marry a first cousin. In most countries around the world, you cannot marry a close relative. In most western countries (and others) marrying more than one person is illegal. Some states and countries ban marriage where one partner has an STI. So gays aren't the only people to not be allowed to marry the person of their choosing. I'm not saying that they're equal to them, just pointing out the restrictions.

“Throughout history, even those civilizations which were more accepting of homosexual relationships did not have a gay "marriage" concept-certainly nothing approaching the equivalence of man/woman marriages in their society. The idea of gay "marriage" is entirely a modern concept.”

Of course, infertile couples can marry, and the pro gay side love to point this out constantly. So, how do they suggest we find out who is infertile and who is not? Asking? Most people who are infertile do not actually know it, plus fertility tests are too expensive (plus the manpower to distribute them, petrol etc) to mandate. Also, infertility may be spontaneously resolved, may appear later in life, or could be cured. It is not necessarily permanent. So infertility in all but the most obvious cases, such as with blood relatives, is left alone.

And elderly couples? Men remain fertile even in old age. What would be the “cut-off” age? Randomly choosing a number fails. Women experience the menopause at different times in life, while one woman may go through it at fifty, another may have it at forty five or sixty. There is no definitive number. Plus elderly women can still conceive with medical help - the oldest woman to give birth was in her eighties, if I recall correctly. So outlawing elderly couples marrying (rare as it is - it wouldn't be worth the outrage) would result in fertile men unable to find a wife to marry. Fail. Plus couples marrying after the age of say, seventy, is extremely rare. The pro gay side, now clutching at straws, will state that couples intending on not having children are still able to marry. The argument is getting more and more ridiculous. Do we have mind reading technology? No? Then how the heck are we supposed to know? Ask? Their opinions may change either way during the marriage!

So, marriage laws ensure, though imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who get the benefits of marriage are the ones who will bear children.

Cool. And so, to state just some of the benefits that a married couple will receive, tax wise:

A blanket exemption from inheritance tax.

No capital gains tax on transfers of chargeable assets.

Properties in joint names

Using unused tax allowances.

And of course, hospital visitation rights, receiving property after the death of one member in the marriage, etc.

These are just some of the numerous benefits that married couples receive, all of which are costly to the state and other individuals. This is where the pro-gay side like to say that gay marriage only affects the individuals involved. Wrong. It has implications on every citizen, not least because of these costly benefits outlined above. So why do married couples get these anyway? Marriage, remember, is not a secular institution - it's the secular acknowledgment of a religious institution. So why would secular society feel the need to acknowledge marriage at all?

Because, traditionally, families were one husband - he worked and brought in the money for the household. The wife stayed at home and looked after the children. As nearly all financial benefits were tied to employment (no dole in those days, at least not to the extent that we have now) which meant that primarily, they were tied to the husband in effect - then how to protect the wife and children? Simple. Give them the rights that we have now, the majority of which were created for this purpose, so that they wouldn't be automatically screwed in the event of the death of the husband, as that would result in the financial benefits going with him. And that was the traditional definition of the family. Not going into a discussion as to whether it was right, wrong, sexist, or whatever. But that was how it was, and in nearly every society on the planet, that was how it was and still is. The fact is that children are a compelling state interest, and raising them within the traditional family model insures that they will become productive members of society.

Roll on the 21st century. Now the pro-gay side just love to point out that, “Oh, but that definition doesn't apply as much as it used to, so you should accept us non-traditional marriages,” They're right. It doesn't apply as much as it used to, but it still does apply. And they're wrong. They cannot have it both ways by saying “Since the definition doesn't apply, you should accept us,” and then doing a 180 and demanding that they need those rights which were created for people entirely dependant on the traditional family model/unit in the first place! Anyone can see that that automatically fails. Quite frankly, there is a stronger argument for the cutting back of the benefits of marriage altogether than there is for gay marriage.

So if gays are not going to fit the definition of this, then what is the point of gay marriage?

So as you can see here, the only benefits of marriage which gays are restricted from are the ones that are costly to both the state and society.

If we accept that heterosexual marriage serves a purpose, and that purpose is to create children, hence why they receive the benefits, then what is the purpose that gay couples serve that heterosexual couples don't that makes them eligible for marriage? And here is where the pro-gay side fails miserably. They cannot answer that question. I'll repeat it: Homosexual marriage do not serve the state interest of creating more citizens, so what societal purpose is it that homosexuals serve that makes them eligible for this?

The pro gay side will shout, “Adoption!” They'd like you to think that the gays will rescue every single child from the states care. Well. Adoption statistics for England:

OK. Of all the children in care in 2008, 12% (7,070) were in care. Now, let's use the oft-quoted by the pro-gay side's statistic of 10% of the population as homosexual/lesbian. For Britain, this is 6,100,000 people. Pair them up (rough estimate, but you will see the point) 3,050,000 people. 7,070 children to adopt. If they were all adopted, the vast, vast majority of gays would not get a look-in childwise. Not worth legalising it soley on that basis. Plus civil partnerships have been legal in Britain since 2005. Have we seen a massive reduction in children in care? NO. Once again, the pro gay side fail. Remove the 3,200 children that were adopted by straight couples and it fails even more! Not enough same-sex couples have a family arrangement that fits the pattern for societal protection according to the traditional justification.

Sources: http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/stats/england.shtml

So essentially, the answer is - Gay couples do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless there is another state interest that they serve that heterosexuals do not. And on that note, it is on the burden of the pro-gay side to come up with. Which so far, they have failed to do. They've shouted for ages over why they want it - but not a single word on what it can do for society as a whole.

(03:23) Gerard: What gay porn links?
(03:23) Gerard: Oh. Oh right.
(03:24) Gerard: ...No one is that flexible Jamie.

--------------------------------









--------------------------------

Me, Toes, Beegs and Drew have been playing Baldur's Gate 2 for the past few weeks, with a ridiculous level of success. Since we've all been on Vent at the same time, much hilarity has ensued, including an incident today in which we pitted the characters against one another in a Battle Royale style deathmatch. It came down to Geraint, who was incapable of attacking the invisible Beegs, killing commoners to attract a City Guard hitsquad who handily took out Beegs.

Other notable incidents include the saga of Beeg's thieving skills being not quite up to scratch:









Toes' constant attempts at substance abuse, usually foiled by Geraint and his potion-quaffing abilities:



Our general anti-social behaviour towards trolls:



The lack of honour amongst thieves:





Drew's inability to let go:



Toes' racial profiling of the bad guys. Upon seeing enemies called "Maharajahs":




My ability to mislead the party as to my misdeeds:





Beeg's disproportionately proportioned character:




The constant repetition of the following phrase wherever my character and his oversized globe of spell deflection went:



Having to explain to Toes the function of various abilities:




Timmy being roughly equatable to Kenny from South Park, including one incident where we fought of a party of doppelgängers:



The dubious nature of some of the Villains:




Drew's general inability to comprehend:




An incident where an especially hard villain irreversibly killed our players one by one, before managing to crash the game itself:



And last but not least, discovering that Toes' characters had no free inventory space because he'd been collecting every single backstory book found:

See here.