Recent posts by Beegum on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: The Last Stand: Dead Zone / help!!!!

It isn’t working on Armorgames or FB.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Last Stand: Dead Zone / Alliance multiplayer maps

They should alliance multiplayer maps to encourage alliances and so forth, blah blah blah, you get the deal if you’ve played this kind of game before.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Biblical View of Creation

Having gazed briefly at the conversation on the first page, I feel the need to point out that in Genesis there are TWO not just one account of the Creation, and they are different. St. Augustine did quite a bit of writing on this topic very long ago. One of the first things to note, for instance, is that without a sun there would be no days. There is also additional information in the Psalms.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The future of the Roman Catholic Church

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Funny, I don’t recall the part in the NT where he says that priests must be male, and certainly not for time immemorial.

It came from the early Church meetings at Nicene and elsewhere. There was no divine revelation sanctioned eternal sexism, they simply made it up. As for the Virgin Mary, she’s important, not so much because she’s the mother of Jesus, but because she’s the virgin mother. It can be seen rather clearly how these stern patriarchs considered sexuality by comparing the Virgin Mary to the other Mary – you know, the whore. Hmm, say, didn’t Jesus dine with her (and other whores, adulterers, etc.)? Didn’t she wash his feet to show her humility? What did Jesus do when she did that, again?

Seems to me that the divine revelation offers a rather different intention for women than the one we got stuck with.

Contraception isn’t a ‘dangerous drug’. It certainly was 2000 years ago when they would use something like ergot, but that’s no longer the case. For that matter, a progressive church in tune to the world it ministers, is not, by extension, a weak church. Such arguments were made during and after Vatican II in order to keep rotting antiques like the latin mass, but the Church went ahead and dissolved it anyway. It changed its position when there was no valid theological argument to keep it, and because it turned away Christians and converts alike. If it can do that for the latin mass, it should do it for women priests (a subject that was, in fact, brought up at Vatican II, but dismissed because of the age).

The Church cannot have women priests. It never has, and if it did, that church would no longer be the Church. If this offends you so much why not find another church and tolerate the Catholic Church as it is? I understand that you disagree, but I find your assertions highly dubious.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by EPR89:

So you want to change the definition of (traditional) legal marriage so that it includes requirements like (biological) children and (apparently only vaginal) sex?
That’s fine.
It’s just not what this thread is about.

You have made several logical errors, including a rather substantial straw man.

I believe that this discussion has gone as far as is reasonable.

I have shown that marginalizing the role of children and reproduction in marriage is not a logical necessity. It, instead, betrays the self interested nature of gay marriage. Further, degrading marriage and picking subsets of married people in order to draw a false equality is also illogical.

I see that there is much anger and intolerance for people who wish for marriage to have a purpose to protect reproduction within intact biological families, and I find this very sad. Instead, it is clear that gay marriage replaces a purpose with no or little discernible reason for marriage to exist in law. Why not just use durable power of attorney? Because that is not the point of marriage or gay marriage.

Yes, individual results and arguments differ.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by EPR89:

Sex is not required for a legal marriage.
So, what the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by Beegum:

However, I recognize the unique goods that come from heterosexual love and sex, and I seek to guide and nurture these goods by providing a likewise unique structure supporting an idea of marriage that predates even history itself. Thus, even if these goods are not strictly provided by the institution of marriage, marriage, nonetheless guides and protects these unique qualities.


Originally posted by EPR89:

Sex is not required for a legal marriage.
So, what the hell are you talking about?


It’s like a book club.
With illiterates.


I believe your making a dishonest marginalization.


I believe you are basing your argument on a completely irrelevant point.
Over and over.

I suppose you got right down to it.

You have asserted that good such as reproduction are ‘irrelevant’, which is convenient, because they can easily be used to create an easily discernible definition for marriage and its purpose in law. I find the necessity of marginalizing reproduction and thus =children= in marriage a very telling reality of the differences in our world view.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:
Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Seriously, what the fuck is this guy saying?

The institution of marriage is about strengthening the economy and providing legal rights to individuals. It serves as a means of negotiating asset ownership and privileges in an arrangement between adults. It enables an individual to grant someone else the right to make decisions about their health and wellbeing if that person cannot speak for themselves. Marriage is not a badge of honor or a legitimization of a lifestyle, it’s a legal precedent for governing intricacies and trust in relationships. Laws are made to avoid legal conflict.

Gay people engage in relationships that imply rights that individuals normally don’t have in relation to anyone else. I cannot decide whether you are taken off of life support after a car accident, only the person you trust to make the decision you would make has that right. No one else gets to take money out of your bank account willy-nilly, but your partner does because you reasonably trust them with your assets because you’re in a relationship. Why can one man not have that legal relationship with another man?

What of this can you not have without gay marriage?

Gay marriage would simply provide the same umbrella of legal coverage that heterosexual couples have. There are 400+ documents (depending on state) that must be completed for a gay person to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, all because the terminology of calling gay people married makes some people uncomfortable. There is no reason to force gay people to go through countless legal hoops to have the same rights as anyone else does simply because they are the same gender as their significant other.

Actually, there are significant difference for which people would not be inclined to call gay couples married. For instance, intact biological families are much different statistically for rearing children than gay and lesbian families. It is interesting that so many people believe that gay families can accomplish as a group what so many step families and devoted single parents have not, after so much work, been able to accomplish. Isn’t it degrading to make such a assertion? Not that you have here.

Oh, as you where saying… gay people need a substantial subsidy to get all these rights… which they must be given… because we cannot acknowledge the role of life long heterosexual sex or reproduction (and others) as goods in which society has an interest.

I reject that notion. I respect that you realize the most of that which you describe can be accomplishes without marriage. Of course there are other programs which further compensate married people for their unique work on behalf of their society… as a group.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by EPR89:

Sex is not required for a legal marriage.
So, what the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by Beegum:

However, I recognize the unique goods that come from heterosexual love and sex, and I seek to guide and nurture these goods by providing a likewise unique structure supporting an idea of marriage that predates even history itself. Thus, even if these goods are not strictly provided by the institution of marriage, marriage, nonetheless guides and protects these unique qualities.


Originally posted by EPR89:

Sex is not required for a legal marriage.
So, what the hell are you talking about?


It’s like a book club.
With illiterates.

I believe your making a dishonest marginalization.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The future of the Roman Catholic Church

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

the prohibition against female clergy is the most moronic doctrine in all of Catholic Orthodoxy. Even birth control can, and has been argued against successfully (though the argument that it ‘saps the lifeforce from humanity’ is not one of them). The Church has nuns, monks, Sisters, Brothers, and male priests. Why not female priests? There is only one explanation: centuries of hardened bigotry.

I’d rather see women clergy. Perhaps they can do a better job of keeping their hands to themselves than the gormless pedophiles that permanently stained the Church’s reputation.

I have attempted to make arguments for an all male priesthood. But, simply, it is divine revelation, who is Jesus Christ, that leads us to this conclusion.

I can discuss further the role of women, such as His mother, in the Christian faith, but I do not think you will find this inspiring.

The point of sapping the vitality of the Church point is important to those who seek a spiritual reality (which certainly touches the substance of our day to day life).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Seriously, what the fuck is this guy saying?

The institution of marriage is about strengthening the economy and providing legal rights to individuals. It serves as a means of negotiating asset ownership and privileges in an arrangement between adults. It enables an individual to grant someone else the right to make decisions about their health and wellbeing if that person cannot speak for themselves. Marriage is not a badge of honor or a legitimization of a lifestyle, it’s a legal precedent for governing intricacies and trust in relationships. Laws are made to avoid legal conflict.

Gay people engage in relationships that imply rights that individuals normally don’t have in relation to anyone else. I cannot decide whether you are taken off of life support after a car accident, only the person you trust to make the decision you would make has that right. No one else gets to take money out of your bank account willy-nilly, but your partner does because you reasonably trust them with your assets because you’re in a relationship. Why can one man not have that legal relationship with another man?

What of this can you not have without gay marriage?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I think his ‘strawman’ is more an inability to understand what the hell your argument is, and making guesses based on the usual conservative arguments against gay marriage. I’d agree. You are once again putting words in people’s mouths and denouncing them as illogical, rather than stating your own argument clearly.

Originally posted by Beegum:

You want to define the purpose of marriage in an relativistic way. I have shown that the current institution of marriage has a clearly discernible purpose.

Thus, what I see is a rejection of dialog in your response.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

An appeal to the status quo isn’t a valid argument. Gay people that exist and love eachother and have intercourse regardless of legal recognition want the same legal rights as straight people in the same relationship status. This inequality is not legally valid unless you can provide some metric that accurately identifies homosexuals or some act as wrong, legally infringing, or malicious that does not include heterosexuals. You also have to link this behavior or illegal activity to being gay married specifically.

You want to define the purpose of marriage in an relativistic way. I have shown that the current institution of marriage has a clearly discernible purpose.

You believe that because such activity exists outside of marriage it somehow informs that which is protected by marriage. This assertion you have made is not a sound logical argument.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Edit: There you go again, trying to vaguely link the “production of babies” to the reason gay marriage should be illegal, without actually identifying how that conclusion is consistent with making gay marriage illegal. What happens if gay marriage is made legal that somehow effects the production of babies, or is somehow related to buttsex?

There are actually multiple good acquired from marriage. You appear to be attempting to marginalize reproduction, likely you will point out that not all marriages are fertile, as if this cherry picking of the evidence would qualify a different act which is always sterile… actually at least 2 logic errors, as well as a third, a straw man.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by EPR89:

Sex is not required for a legal marriage.
So, what the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by Beegum:

However, I recognize the unique goods that come from heterosexual love and sex, and I seek to guide and nurture these goods by providing a likewise unique structure supporting an idea of marriage that predates even history itself. Thus, even if these goods are not strictly provided by the institution of marriage, marriage, nonetheless guides and protects these unique qualities.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Burden of proof is on you. What reason should we bar gay people from getting married?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Again, what? Something needs to contribute goods to society to be useful?

Thus, you are arguing that gay marriage is the logical conclusion because marriage is an illogical law.

I reject the notion that we need change marriage into an institutions without a readily discernible purpose.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Again, what? Something needs to contribute goods to society to be useful? What were you originally trying to say about homosexuality that makes it legally wrong in relation to harm/risk/buttsex? Another completely unrelated argument that doesn’t actually provide any premises, just conclusions.

You appear to have pointed out and rejected a reasonable assertion of the purpose of having a law. For what reason should we regulate and support gay love?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Possibility of another WorldWar

We may need to contain China. They are constantly playing a dangerous ‘nationalist’ card. Which changes them into a more fascist context to the socialism as market becomes more free. Thus, they have riots against foreign businesses related to the need to assert that they should control completely all the South China Sea (for instance there are also lots of other claims) and have the appearance of threatening Taiwan with eventual military actions in order to take it back. It is a sad thing that the military wastes excess funds rather than buying goods such as gold with it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Holy shit, stop avoiding the argument. I read your posts, you didn’t address anything I said. I specifically addressed your points. You’re not making any sense. The thing you keep repeating is shifting the burden of proof.

If I tolerate anal sex, then I tolerate it for married people as well, but, I reject it as some good that is attained, because it is not positive. However, I recognize the unique goods that come from heterosexual love and sex, and I seek to guide and nurture these goods by providing a likewise unique structure supporting an idea of marriage that predates even history itself. Thus, even if these goods are not strictly provided by the institution of marriage, marriage, nonetheless guides and protects these unique qualities.

OR I COULD JUST SAY:

Originally posted by Beegum:

… What you are asserting is that I need to disengage from reality to the point that I can no longer discern the great positive role of heterosexual love in human ecology to define what marriage is.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

What? So… your position is that homosexual marriage should be illegal because it’s unsafe, but we should tolerate buttsex (the unsafe part that only some of homosexuals express) simply because straight people have it as well? At this point I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about. Can I get one single sentence on why gay people shouldn’t be able to get married?

Originally posted by Beegum:

… What you are asserting is that I need to disengage from reality to the point that I can no longer discern the great positive role of heterosexual love in human ecology to define what marriage is.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

BSG uses Applied Logical Consistency! But it misses.
Beegum uses Genetic Fallacy! But it has no effect.

Am I being incoherent? You said that buttsex is your problem, and even acknowledged that buttsex can be had by straight people, but you didn’t explain how one group can be singled out for their sexual actions, but the other group cannot, despite the fact that many people in the homosexual community do not practice buttsex because they don’t feel the risks are worth the reward. You said that individual decisions to address risks related to sexual expression is not a right some individuals should have (again, selective application), but your obvious conservative values are in contradiction to this assertion. Nothing I said was a claim of my own, I was addressing your posts and you undercut them entirely.

I said:

Originally posted by Beegum:

Thus, it could certainly make sense to tolerate anal sex, despite that fact that it is unhealthy.

This is actually a tolerant position. What you are asserting is that I need to disengage from reality to the point that I can no longer discern the great positive role of heterosexual love in human ecology to define what marriage is.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The future of the Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church and related Churches who cling to the Jesus, His Church, and His Pope, has great vitality and is growing rapidly. It is synonymous with health care and education in large regions of the world, and, aside from this, is the great moral formation it gives to people. As the great caretaker of logic throughout its centuries of existence, due in no small part from the profound timing of its foundation, it makes no sense to conclude that logic can somehow disprove the validity of the Church.

Contraception is counter productive. It is unhealthy, of course, to suppress the health of a female with a dangerous drug. This leads to a constellation of problems, such as sexual immorality, which leads to the spread of disease. Indeed, propagation of Western culture, such as the use of birth control and condoms, fails to slow the spread of disease, not just AIDS in Africa, but also STDs throughout the US. Those who are interested in this topic can easily Yahoo! the topic and fine a lot of information, some contradictory. If they need more information I could possibly help as well. Also, the use of contraceptives put a strange notion in the mind that pregnancy as a result of sexual activity is somehow a health problem, when actually it is symptomatic of health. Further, there are natural alternatives that are good for couples and so effective they are actually used to distinguish fertility problems and achieve pregnancy.

The shortage of priests is not universal, for instance, in my diocese, the bishops says that we do not actually have a vocational shortage. The vocational shortage is related to religious groups who have taken on progressive notions, such as woman clergy and birth control. As if saps vitality from mankind, so to does it from the Church.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

First: Gay marriage is not buttsex.
Second: Straight people can have buttsex.
Third: Consenting adults can make decisions about their own personal risks.
Forth: Risks related to homosexual expression can be significantly mitigated and improved with education, far more than legislation could ever hope to provide.

You sound like the liberals who regulated the size of soda in New York. Personally police yourself.

Now, notice how this response precisely reflects the logically failures that I asserted are common, necessary even, in asserting that gay marriage is some sort of legal necessity.

Originally posted by Beegum:

Oh, don’t be ridiculous. You certainly do not need religion to conclude that there is no gay right to get married.



Now, lurkers will note that attacks made against this thesis rely on, either insulting me, or marginalizing the goods of heterosexual sex in some way (such as pointing at the flaws in the population). Attached to this is usually and idealized version gay love, one this is, even, impossibly rare, especially impossibly rare for study (such as long lasting gay relationships that do not include sex outside with persons outside the couple).

Establishing the direct link necessary to craft a true argument in logic is not possible. Thus, the legal means of doing this is significantly different when the judges not considered liberal outright reject the notion of logic being used in this argument.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Vague references to the negative effects of particular people getting married that applies to more than those particular people is not a thesis, it’s selective application of invalidated suppositions in order to imply logical coherency without actually containing any. For example, even if what you’re arguing is correct, which it isn’t, it isn’t much of a legal argument against homosexuality.

You mean that the fact that anal sex is harmful to the rectum and anus is not a legal argument against gay marriage… It also seems that your are challenging this assertion.

The assertion regarding the legal argument appears to be that even if this is true, we should be barred from doing the logical thing, which is refusing to call equal that which is inherently unequal.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Oh, don’t be ridiculous. You certainly do not need religion to conclude that there is no gay right to get married.

People are drawn to numerous different dangerous and harmful things. Being attracted to people of the same sex is not particularly different, though, it does, like other things, present its own set of difficulties. Life long married sex is actually healthy for the spouses. I do not know what the physical downsides of lesbian sex are, but they don’t have these positive health side effects. Anal sex is harmful to the human body. And, yes, I know that some heterosexuals practice anal sex, that is beside the point. Thus, it could certainly make sense to tolerate anal sex, despite that fact that it is unhealthy. Of course we should warn people that anal sex is unhealthy and not pretend that it isn’t. Even bringing this up is often considered a low blow by people who watch these debates, but, as a matter of fact, it’s extremely biased to make that assertion. Also, it makes sense to reinforce these relationships that have the upside of life long heterosexual married love, which, also, has the incredible upside of reproduction attached to it.

Now, lurkers will note that attacks made against this thesis rely on, either insulting me, or marginalizing the goods of heterosexual sex in some way (such as pointing at the flaws in the population). Attached to this is usually and idealized version gay love, one this is, even, impossibly rare, especially impossibly rare for study (such as long lasting gay relationships that do not include sex outside with persons outside the couple).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Free market capitalism

Let’s see. Sweden isn’t doing so bad, and has a long history of business freedom. Of course, on of its historical strengths is that it did not participate in WWII. Also, the country is has a fairly homogenous demographic. Their education is quite good and the system is state funded, to some extent, and free market run. I believe that I watched a video (from PBS I think) that included Swedish education, and the teachers they interviewed said they got a lot of their ideas from successful US schools. Likely they didn’t go to US fail schools…

(US in Green, Sweden in Red)
http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=sweden|unitedstates&src=country

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

I presume you mean the couple who had sex to create the fetus in the first place. I cannot think of anyone else whose consent is absolutely paramount.