Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Even if they have insurance and can therefore "pay for it themselves," increased severity of injuries raises premiums for everyone else.

edit: not to mention they take up more space/time in emergency rooms, increasing wait times and decreasing the standard of care there; their injuries keep them out of work longer, which reduces productivity and hurts the economy, which hurts everyone; etc etc etc

Sounds like BS from the insurance companies ... Where we're all the premiums reductions when seat belt laws were put in place -- thus creating less instances in your example above?

Answer: there were none

 

Originally Posted by VanceAce

I didn't realize that being married meant you were forced to have children. That kinda hurts your pro gay marriage stance IMO.

It doesn't mean you're forced to have children but even if it did that fact would not damage my pro-marriage equality stance at all.

 

Originally Posted by VanceAce

If you're trying to imply that banning incest marriages keeps consenting siblings from having sex/reproducing -- I think I'll need you to provide some proof to that one. Cuz I'm not buying that you can stop consenting adults from having sex because it's illegal.

Frankly I don't care if relatives want to have sex with each other. That seems gross to me, but whatever, not my problem. And if a pair of siblings really want to reproduce with each other, no law is going to stop them. However, banning marriage between siblings/other close relatives is a deterrent (not a perfect one, obviously, but a deterrent nonetheless) to incestuous reproduction both because it reinforces the cultural taboo against incest and because most people want to reproduce within the bounds of a committed partnership.

 

Originally Posted by stackinsideways

that rationality is the start to a huge snowball. I could name millions of "safety steps" that could be made into laws if we are using that as the basis.

they also injure other people. argument over.

I originally responded to a poster that said people not wearing seatbelts in no way affected him. I don't want to get pulled in to some BS circular logic argument.

I'm a pretty strong libertarian and I think seatbelt laws are legit. out here it's a secondary violation tho, you have to be breaking another law to get pulled over

 

Originally Posted by VanceAce

If, "no law is going to stop them" ... how can you then claim its an effective deterrent?

There is a stigma and it makes it socially unacceptable. Other places it is completely normal and expected to marry your cousin. We don't grow up in the US thinking this is ok

 

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

I originally responded to a poster that said people not wearing seatbelts in no way affected him. I don't want to get pulled in to some BS circular logic argument.

I'm a pretty strong libertarian and I think seatbelt laws are legit. out here it's a secondary violation tho, you have to be breaking another law to get pulled over

LOL

This thread is amazing on so many levels.

lol people

Mary Browns Fried Chicken tho?
Is that place only here in Canada?

edit - yep it is only for canada.

Never tried this chic-fila or whatever but Mary Browns is the tits

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Actually, a lot of these organizations that Chick-Fil-a donated to are actually anti gay. For example, here's what the Family Research Council, one of the organizations that Chick-Fil-A donates to, has to say about homosexuality

I see what you're saying. If that's the case, then I stand corrected.

**I still don't think I'd qualify what you posted as "hate", I think it's definitely misinformation and ignorance. I think what most of these people need is education and exposure. People are typically afraid of what they don't understand. I think it would be far better to attempt to educate them ina respectful way, but unfortunately, it seems that the response is to accuse them of being bigots and hate-mongers. I highly doubt that's going to solve anything. In fact, it probably only fuels the fire.

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

I'd get behind ECU in a sexual way, except OneM would beat me up.

LOL

 

Originally Posted by ECUgirl

LOL

You should think about it tho. You know what they say...once you go Ivy, you'll want to be a wifey

 

Originally Posted by VanceAce

Sounds like BS from the insurance companies ... Where we're all the premiums reductions when seat belt laws were put in place -- thus creating less instances in your example above?

Answer: there were none

I'm liking how you're thinking.

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

What? Laws don't have to be 100% effective to be a deterrent. Laws against theft are a deterrent, but thousands of people still steal from others every year. Thinking doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

LOL The only reason you've come up with, so far, for banning incest marriage is for "biological reproduction reasons". Then in your very next sentence, you tell us all how that isn't a good enough reason (in itself) to outlaw it (see: inheritable genetic diseases). Contradictions much?

I tell you what, if you're really concerned about birth defects in children, I'll get behind that issue with you. Let start a protest against allowing women over the age of 40 from marrying. Since we all know marriage = reproduction AND their chance of having a child with a birth defect is basically the same as a couple practicing incest.

 

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

they also injure other people. argument over.

How about a compromise? I'll accept seatbelt laws if you agree to mandatory trigger locks.