[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No, you should make it a requirement that anyone who gets married *must* produce children.

Why? We don't do that with any other affirmative government action. In order to take part in racial affirmative action, you don't have to prove that you've actually been discriminated again.

We know that statistically, childbirth will happen in the majority of cases whether it's intended or not, so those who meet the basic criteria are allowed to partake.

Failure to do so within a specified period of time (probably 5-10 years) will result in a fine and nullification of the marriage. That way, it's very clear what the purpose of marriage is (it's not a right, it's a responsibility), and it's available to anyone who can produce children.

That's simply not a standard that can be practically applied or one that has any consistency with how we've handled other affirmative actions. Based on your logic, there should be no limits on poor white people being able to apply and be granted racial affirmative action benefits.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

FOX is reporting:

'They Tried to Steal an Election,' N.Y. Voter Fraud Case Heats Up
Thirty-eight forged or fraudulent ballots have been thrown out, according to records at the Rensselaer County Board of Elections in Troy, N.Y. Enough votes, an election official admits, to likely have tipped the November election to the Democrats.

'They Tried to Steal an Election,' N.Y. Voter Fraud Case Heats Up - Political News - FOXNews.com
...

SO, I guess FOX will be vilified for reporting on this. I wonder what kind of lies and BS will be coming from the "Media Controllers" at the White House? Where were those checks and balances and where were those election officials during all this? When will the "Obama stole the Election" bumper stickers be available?

You see, this is a legitimate story, and an important one. Our elections are run in a very decentralized fashion, which is good because it means that widespread voter fraud on the scale needed to tip a statewide or national election is unlikely. But local voter fraud in a few districts is possible, especially when the balance between winning and losing is in the dozens of votes.

But you blow your credibility when you start to insinuate that the White House or Obama has anything to do with it. (I would be surprised if they say anything about fraud in a local primary election in Troy, NY, that doesn't even involve the President's party.) And the folks who wrote that piece lose some credibility when they write that since the Working Families party routinely endorses Democrats for statewide office, that ties the candidates directly to ACORN! They clearly don't understand how third parties work in New York State. (Or they do, but they're deliberately obfuscating it to suit their agenda.)

Just because the story is legitimate doesn't mean your partisan slant on it is. ACORN is an old story now, which should be dead and buried, but FOX keeps bringing it up into totally unrelated news items just to score points with their conservative audience. An impartial news organization would not push that linkage when there really is none.

[olePigeon]

Here's the problem with FOX News, BadKosh. You see, you're going to see countless articles on Democratic voter fraud; now, I want you to do a search on Fox News for Mark Anthony Jacoby.

I'll save you some time, you're not going to find a single news article on the man. Not on FOX News, anyway. The man was arrested last year for felony voter fraud. He's the head of the GOP group Young Political Majors. Somehow FOX News conveniently forgot about the story.

[BadKosh]

I never claimed the White House had anything to do with this. Do you think the WH will comment on it? I wonder if their IS an impartial news organization. Ads far as ACORN is concerned, they are mixed up in several states ongoing investigations into voter fraud for such things as attempting to register Mickey mouse etc.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

SO, I guess FOX will be vilified for reporting on this. I wonder what kind of lies and BS will be coming from the "Media Controllers" at the White House? Where were those checks and balances and where were those election officials during all this? When will the "Obama stole the Election" bumper stickers be available?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I never claimed the White House had anything to do with this.

You, sir, are a fraud.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You, sir, are a fraud.

and you must be functionally illiterate.

Show where I claimed the WH was involved in the voter fraud.

I asked if the WH would comment on those events, and I mentioned the media control claimed by the WH.

[Dork.]

And I assume you're going to claim that the bumper stickers about the election Obama stole would be some other election, then, and not the one you wrote that big, long post about?

[BadKosh]

No, I suggested that somebody in NY might just make up some for their situation.

Perhaps the libs need to see the words written and not ASSUME something other than what was written?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why? We don't do that with any other affirmative government action. In order to take part in racial affirmative action, you don't have to prove that you've actually been discriminated again.

We know that statistically, childbirth will happen in the majority of cases whether it's intended or not, so those who meet the basic criteria are allowed to partake.



That's simply not a standard that can be practically applied or one that has any consistency with how we've handled other affirmative actions. Based on your logic, there should be no limits on poor white people being able to apply and be granted racial affirmative action benefits.

Could you explain how preventing homosexuals from getting married is an example of affirmative government action?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Could you explain how preventing homosexuals from getting married is an example of affirmative government action?

If anything, wouldn't affirmative action be favoring homosexuals?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Could you explain how preventing homosexuals from getting married is an example of affirmative government action?

It's no more an example of affirmative government action than preventing white people from getting preferential treatment in hiring is.

The "affirmative action" isn't the prevention, but rather the special status afforded a certain class which society believes would encourage that class to thrive.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's no more an example of affirmative government action than preventing white people from getting preferential treatment in hiring is.

The "affirmative action" isn't the prevention, but rather the special status afforded a certain class which society believes would encourage that class to thrive.

Soooo .... you believe that the heterosexual class requires a special status of "marriable" in order to be encouraged to thrive?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Soooo .... you believe that the heterosexual class requires a special status of "marriable" in order to be encouraged to thrive?

No.

I do think though that men and women who come together in unions which normally result in the production of offspring should be given special status if they take action to continue to provide the societally preferred living unit for offspring to be raised.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I do think though that men and women who come together in unions which normally result in the production of offspring should be given special status if they take action to continue to provide the societally preferred living unit for offspring to be raised.

So, you believe that in order to be married the couple in question *must* produce children. If not, why would you possibly care who can get married?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The right to real equality rather than a "separate but equal" institution from what straights get.

It seems more "different but equal" to me. "separate but equal" implies something a smidgen more profound IMO.

[Chongo]

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you believe that in order to be married the couple in question *must* produce children.

No. I never said that anymore than I said that in order to get racial affirmative action, a minority must prove that they've been discriminated against.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No. I never said that anymore than I said that in order to get racial affirmative action, a minority must prove that they've been discriminated against.

Oh. Well, then, I don't really understand why you are opposed to same-sex marriage. You don't really seem to have a reason beyond "I don't like it".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'll save you some time, you're not going to find a single news article on the man. Not on FOX News, anyway. The man was arrested last year for felony voter fraud. He's the head of the GOP group Young Political Majors. Somehow FOX News conveniently forgot about the story.

Fox News should've run the story, but it seemed to lack coverage even in a lot of local California rags.

To those frustrated by Mark Jacoby, make sure you're not donating to the RNC. This way, at least 3 States will be free of voter registration fraud.

To those frustrated by ACORN, hold back your tax money. This way, at least 14 States will be free of voter registration fraud.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Oh. Well, then, I don't really understand why you are opposed to same-sex marriage. You don't really seem to have a reason beyond "I don't like it".

I'm not opposed to people doing whatever they like.

I am opposed to the government watering down the special status they currently give men and women who come together in long term unions which normally result in the production of offspring. Giving them this special legal status encourages them to continue to provide the societally preferred living unit for their offspring to be raised.

Same sex unions won't ever produce offspring, just as white people don't normally have to fear of being the victims of racial prejudice. You don't give special affirmative action status to groups who can easily be eliminated from normally needing the encouragement provided.

If you still don't understand that it's not just because "I don't like it", it's not because I haven't tried to explain it to you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I am opposed to the government watering down the special status they currently give men and women who come together in long term unions which normally result in the production of offspring. Giving them this special legal status encourages them to continue to provide the societally preferred living unit for their offspring to be raised.

Why do you feel they need this special status? Do men and women face some sort of difficulty in coming together in unions which normally result in the production of offspring?

It sounds to me as though you want "exclusive status" more than "special status".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why do you feel they need this special status?

I already explained this. When you give something special status, that thing is encouraged. It's the same as when we give racial minorities special status in regards to affirmative action.

I'm pretty sure that most of society agrees that men and woman should be encouraged to jointly raise their biological offspring (what normally occurs during long term unions between men and women) in a loving home. When you give special status to those who do so, they are encouraged to keep doing so.

Do men and women face some sort of difficulty in coming together in unions which normally result in the production of offspring?

Not in coming together. Staying together.

That's why there is an inherent inequality between the two types of unions we are discussing. One has a vitally important societal interest (the raising of a new generation of citizens) while the other....not so much. Not just because I don't "like it", but rather due to uncontrollable biological facts.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm pretty sure that most of society agrees that men and woman should be encouraged to jointly raise their biological offspring (what normally occurs during long term unions between men and women) in a loving home. When you give special status to those who do so, they are encouraged to keep doing so.

And, if society votes to accept same sex marriage, you will accept it?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not in coming together. Staying together.

Does same sex marriage somehow discourage heterosexual couples from staying together?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's why there is an inherent inequality between the two types of unions we are discussing. One has a vitally important societal interest (the raising of a new generation of citizens) while the other....not so much. Not just because I don't "like it", but rather due to uncontrollable biological facts.

How does same sex marriage threaten the "vitally important societal interest (the raising of a new generation of citizens)"? If that interest is so vital, why shouldn't there be a law *requiring* the production of a new generation of citizens? Why are you not worried about the threatening influence of those dual-income-no-kids marriages? If I were worried about a population decline, I'd be more worried about everyone becoming D.I.N.K.s than about them becoming homosexual.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, if society votes to accept same sex marriage, you will accept it?

"Accept" it in what regard? Accept that it's a legal standard? Sure.

"Accept" that it makes any logical sense and doesn't do more harm than good? Probably not.

Tolerance of other's viewpoints doesn't require us to accept them as correct or logical when they can be shown not to be.

Does same sex marriage somehow discourage heterosexual couples from staying together?

Would giving white people racial affirmative action discourage black people from trying to better themselves?

The question is better asked if giving equal status to things of unequal societal interest diminishes the special status given by affirmative actions. I really don't think that the government has a compelling interest in who we love. There is no "Department of Love" or "Ministry of Good Sex" in our government. On the other hand, there are multiple government agencies whose sole purpose is for the welfare of the offspring created by what happens when men and woman join together in long term unions. There is a proven and compelling societal interest there that no one can deny. One that doesn't exist with same-sex unions.

How does same sex marriage threaten the "vitally important societal interest (the raising of a new generation of citizens)"?

It doesn't have to "threaten" it. A better question is why we would give special status to something as an affirmative action when there is no compelling state interest in doing so. I've outlined the compelling state interest in regards to opposite sex uinons that IS NOT a factor in same sex unions. You don't have to "threaten" something in order to not provide affirmative actions where there is no compelling societal interest in doing so.

...again, if we gave white people the right to racial affirmative action, would that stop black people from trying to better themselves?

If that interest is so vital, why shouldn't there be a law *requiring* the production of a new generation of citizens?

No more than if you required minorities to first be the victim of prejudice, and then prove it in getting racial affirmative action. You are expecting a higher standard for this than what is the norm, just because YOU don't like the current standard.

At this point, you really are arguing in circles.

[BadKosh]

The Marriage of gays has never been about marriage, just another "everything you know is wrong" ploy from the far left.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Marriage of gays has never been about marriage, just another "everything you know is wrong" ploy from the far left.

So... gays don't actually want to get married?

[besson3c]

BadKosh: no, the marriage of gays has been about some people (usually conservatives) having some sort of problem with gays and trying to make the issue a wash with some sort of rationale. Gays are the new blacks.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BadKosh: no, the marriage of gays has been about some people (usually conservatives) having some sort of problem with gays and trying to make the issue a wash with some sort of rationale. Gays are the new blacks.

Mexicans are the new blacks. So gays are the new Mexicans.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Marriage of gays has never been about marriage, just another "everything you know is wrong" ploy from the far left.

Yeah, kinda like the civil rights movement.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yeah, kinda like the civil rights movement.

Of course, the civil rights movement was about discrimination based on the color of your skin, not the content of your character or what you choose to do as Dr. King would tell us.

The same can't be said for this argument, and that's why the analogy always fails. It's not possible to discriminate against a homosexual because of how they look unless they all "look the same".

[Chuckit]

The genitals of the person you sleep with = content of your character? I don't think that was the definition King had in mind at all.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The genitals of the person you sleep with = content of your character?

To some, quite possibly, whether you agree or not. If the genitals belong to a serial killer - would that not be a judge of your personal character?

People can have all kinds of reasons to discriminate based on what you choose to do. If we go down the road of eliminating our rights to discriminate in how we treat others based on their personal choices (something not immutable) then you are actually intruding on someone's personal right to pursue their happiness how they see fit and actually legislating morality.

I think that laws not allowing adults to do as they please in the privacy of their homes are equally bad to those which protect people from personal discrimination based on those (and other) things. Freedom means being free from government intrusion in what you want to do personally. It doesn't mean that the government has to sanction your behavior or protect it. Unless of course that behavior is specifically mentioned as a right - like say religious worship.

I don't think that was the definition King had in mind at all.

I'm guessing he might. Southern, religious black people in the sixties (and even still) didn't really think traditionally sexual immoral behavior was worth protecting (of course, unless they were the ones doing it. ) At least from what I can hear. I've seen some of the people who fought back then cringe when people try to make an analogy between race and sexual choices.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've seen some of the people who fought back then cringe when people try to make an analogy between race and sexual choices.

That's only if sexual preference is a choice. However, if it's genetic, then it's *exactly* the same.

[hyteckit]

Lady Gaga is both a girl and boy. More like a lady boy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's only if sexual preference is a choice. However, if it's genetic, then it's *exactly* the same.

I don't think something simply being "genetic" is exactly the same when you can choose to either do or not do something based on that genetic preference. You can't choose not to engage in "black behavior". When someone looks at you and says you can't drink at a certain water fountain, it isn't because of what they've been observed to have done - it's because of the color of their skin. I can't look at someone and know they are gay and discriminate against them unless they choose to engage in sexual practices that many believe to be immoral (whether you agree or not) or choose to do SOMETHING that alerts me to the fact that they've decided to act on their genetic preference (if it is genetic).

If due to some genetically created chemical imbalance you are a violent person who has the urge to kill, is that "exactly the same" as being black as far as you needing special protection for something you can't help, or is simply not being able to help what you desire to do enough?

The fact is, people can choose to act on their preferences. They should be free to act on those preferences without government interference if they don't directly interfere with someone else's rights or if doing so causes some greater societal ill. However, I think it would be a huge mistake to start legislating what we can or can't choose to do and get protection for it. That's a huge slippery slope that does infringe on others rights to discriminate for themselves based on observable behavior.

I think discrimination based on behavior is a good thing. It's one way we ensure order in society. People are more likely to behave properly if they know that they may be shunned by their peers for acting in immoral or anti-social ways. Kooks are less likely to burn crosses in their neighbor's lawns if they know it might cost them their job because their boss won't like their persona behavior. True homophobes are less likely to taunt and abuse gay people if they know that others won't tolerate that sort of thing.

The thing about freedom though is that sometimes the freedom others enjoy doesn't exactly help you with yours. That's life. You have to take the good with the bad.

[Dork.]

So what you're saying is that it's OK to continue to prohibit gays from getting married, because we, as a country, want them to stop acting so gay and go off and make babies instead?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

So what you're saying is that it's OK to continue to prohibit gays from getting married, because we, as a country, want them to stop acting so gay and go off and make babies instead?

No.

They can choose to do whatever they like. They can act gay. Make babies. Join together in unions. Just generally knock themselves out with the freedom this country grants them.

What they can't do is get equal affirmative government action and acknowledgment when they choose to do something that does not have the same societal interest as those who choose not to make those choices.

[BadKosh]

The domestic union contracts serve the same purpose. The tax side will have to be hammered out at the Fed level however. They can have contracts just like hetero couples who don't wish to get married. Claiming that they 'need' to be married ( a religious construct) seems hypocritical because the churches mostly don't approve of gay marriage.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

However, I think it would be a huge mistake to start legislating what we can or can't choose to do and get protection for it. That's a huge slippery slope that does infringe on others rights to discriminate for themselves based on observable behavior.

So, what you're saying is that there shouldn't be *any* laws dictating who can and can't do something?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...when they choose to do something that does not have the same societal interest as those who choose not to make those choices.

What exactly is the "societal interest" to a heterosexual marriage that doesn't exist in a homosexual marriage/partnership?

As a straight female who fully intends on marrying my current male partner, I also 1,000% intend on never ever ever in a million eleventy trillion years ever procreating. Ever. I despise children and never want to be preggers or raise a kid. I'm doing everything in my power to facilitate that.

So how, as a straight person with a straight partner and a clear intention to never procreate, am I different from a gay couple? I love my partner very much. My lesbian coworker at my last job loves her partner very much; they've been together for seventeen years and still going strong. What's the difference?

If my coworker were to have a sex change operation, she could suddenly get married to her partner. Why is that? Is having one penis and one vagina in a romantic relationship necessary for a marriage to have any benefit to society? If yes, why?

Is it that I can choose not to have a child? The aforementioned lesbian couple is going to have a child through sperm donation. They obviously have a choice regarding whether or not to have a child, so what's the difference? Is it because a third party is necessary? In that case, every severely physically disabled person should also be banned from marriage, since they'll always need a third party other than their romantic partner to see to their most basic care and needs.

Is marriage really about having children, or is it about committing to loving and supporting another human being for as long as you both shall live?

And, AFAIK, no "domestic partnership", contractual or not, lends the same legal benefits that a government-recognized family bond (marriage) does.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What they can't do is get equal affirmative government action and acknowledgment when they choose to do something that does not have the same societal interest as those who choose not to make those choices.

As we've pointed out previously, straight couples can gain the legal benefits of marriage without sharing in the same societal interest to raise children. Gays can also choose to adopt, and then they would share in the same societal interest. Furthermore, there are rights and benefits extended to married couples that do not depend on the presence of children in the household, and other rights and benefits that extend to parents of minor children, whether or not the parents are married.

No matter what the original reason for state-sanctioned marriage was, I'm not sure if the societal interest argument is sufficient to continue to deny gay couples the same legal rights of straight couples in the present day..

[Chongo]

This thread is about Obama and his war on Fox News (and now the US Chamber of Commerce). Mods, split the non topic posts into it's own thread, and please....

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, what you're saying is that there shouldn't be *any* laws dictating who can and can't do something?

I'm thinking the problem may be that you are reading bits and pieces of the thread, and then ask questions that have already been answered. I know that many of the points people keep bringing up have been asked and answered here before.

At this point, I'm just going to reply "read the thread" when someone asks a question or makes an argument that has already been answered.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What exactly is the "societal interest" to a heterosexual marriage that doesn't exist in a homosexual marriage/partnership?

Read the thread.

As a straight female who fully intends on marrying my current male partner, I also 1,000% intend on never ever ever in a million eleventy trillion years ever procreating.

Neither did I. I currently have 2 children.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

As we've pointed out previously, straight couples can gain the legal benefits of marriage without sharing in the same societal interest to raise children.

Read the thread. Already asked and answered several times.

Gays can also choose to adopt, and then they would share in the same societal interest.

The same societal interest in seeing to it that men and woman who come together in long term unions and create biological offspring stay together and raise that child? Uh...no. That standard already failed the minute there was a child in need of being adopted by non-biological parents. That child may never know his real parents and be able to enjoy the multiple benefits of shared biological parental ancestry.

...and that's how the circular arguments start.

Most all the arguments are about how some people who get married either don't have or intend to have children and still get the government affirmative action of marriage recognition. The fact is that the standard you are requesting (denial of status even though the people in question meet the most basic criteria where the majority do end up providing a scenario worth of affirmative action) isn't reasonable and isn't used for any other type of government affirmative action.

I've pointed out time and again that just because a MINORITY OF PEOPLE who fit the most basic profile, who can not be easily removed from the class in question without extensive medical testing (which is often times flawed) might benefit, it does not mean you have to allow classes which CAN BE easily removed.

It's no different from with racial affirmative action. Once someone can show that they are a racial minority (belongs to a class of people who as a majority would be seen to benefit from the affirmative government actions in question), there's no further means testing required. Wealthy black people can take part in affirmative action programs while poor white people cannot, even though they too would benefit if given the affirmative actions. White people can be easily removed from the class though, because biologically, they can not be deemed a racial minority in need of special status.

Really...this isn't complicated. It seems that the problem some of you have is that you want the way we give out government affirmative actions changed because you don't like the fact that a class you want to support isn't included because it doesn't have the same societal interest. You want to throw the "baby out with the bath water" because you can't have your way.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Of course, the civil rights movement was about discrimination based on the color of your skin, not the content of your character or what you choose to do as Dr. King would tell us.

You need to read up on your history. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. was not just about the color of your skin, it covered race, gender, religion, and gay rights.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The same can't be said for this argument, and that's why the analogy always fails.

No, it works.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not possible to discriminate against a homosexual because of how they look unless they all "look the same".

Clearly you've never been to San Francisco.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Really...this isn't complicated. It seems that the problem some of you have is that you want the way we give out government affirmative actions changed because you don't like the fact that a class you want to support isn't included because it doesn't have the same societal interest. You want to throw the "baby out with the bath water" because you can't have your way.

The problem I have are religious bigots interfering with politics, passing Jim Crow laws to prevent two people who love each other from being married.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No.

They can choose to do whatever they like. They can act gay. Make babies. Join together in unions. Just generally knock themselves out with the freedom this country grants them.

What they can't do is get equal affirmative government action and acknowledgment when they choose to do something that does not have the same societal interest as those who choose not to make those choices.

I think you need to prove that marriage is solely affirmative action, establish the parameters of said affirmative action and show that it is effective for that purpose and could not reasonably be expanded or stop basing arguments off such a specious claim.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You need to read up on your history. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. was not just about the color of your skin, it covered race, gender, religion, and gay rights.

I sure at one point it may have. I thought we were specifically talking about what went on in the 60's that was successful. I don't remember Dr. King championing gay rights or for gay people to be granted additional protection back then. I could be wrong.

No, it works.

Your opinion is noted.

Clearly you've never been to San Francisco.

I haven't. Are you saying that homosexuals there choose to look different than normal people?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The problem I have are religious bigots interfering with politics, passing Jim Crow laws to prevent two people who love each other from being married.

We have definition of "marriage" that works and serves a purpose as I've outlined. There is a societal interest based on biological facts of life. The fact of the matter is, it really doesn't have anything to do with religion. The government simply has no real compelling interest in interfering with who we "love". Absent the compelling societal interest that is created by the natural biological response that occurs in men and women who unite, there's really no reason for government entities to get involved.

Currently, there's a norm that happens when people marry that creates a societal interest with huge impact. You want to change things because apparently you think that government sponsorship of emotions is equal to what already exists. That fails basic logic tests. While I have no problems with people who want to change things just because they want it, you can't try to argue for it based on fairness or equality since we aren't dealing with equal things.