Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Overturning of Gay Marriage Ban in CA

Overturning of Gay Marriage Ban in CA (Page 4)
Thread Tools
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
ok i'll highlight the right i'm being denied in every state because of this issue. I fell in love with someone from another country who had to leave the us after a few years when his visa ran out. We went to lawyer after lawyer looking for any way we could stay together. They said if we were a straight couple we could get married and there'd be no problem but since we don't have equal rights in the united states our only option was to move to another country where they have already entered the 21st century. It took 18 months of separation and thousands of dollars not to mention having to leave my home and country which is supposed to be the best in the world but we now truly do have equality and a life together. This is probably just an 'argument' to you because you don't know us, but to me it's a life-changing experience that altered the way i think of people and my country and the world and the bs i was taught in civics class. And i can tell you that changing the law really does change people's minds and very fast. It's amazing how nobody here even blinks at two legally married men and this is the heart of the small-town midwest, not downtown toronto or vancouver. And anyway, why should americans have to 'hightlight' and whine about each benefit and right we are being denied since we can't get married just because you're not comfortable giving us your "level-best" blessing as equal citizens? Thank god those days are almost over!
+10000
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
  • The perceived "importance" of marriage in trying to legitimize an illegitimate relationship.
  • The divorce rate
  • antiquated legislation around property, income distribution, and child visitation.
  • Clogging the judicial system with divorce
... to name a few. I think it's time we ask ourselves what exactly we're encouraging here.
And what does this list have to do with gay marriage? Nothing. Are you suggesting gay marriage encourages these behaviors?

I agree with all the above. Defending "marriage" is not something that can be done at the Federal level or even the State level for that matter. It starts with the family, upbringing, discernment, not making impulse decisions as if you're picking out a toothbrush, etc..., but these are all the difficulties around societal ills that people have a tendency to try mitigating with Federal legislation. Folks want to talk about the sanctity of marriage, but they've not been good stewards of their own. It's all just silly IMO.
Agreed, but this also has nothing to do with gay marriage.


That's because they tiptoe around the issue for fear of being called homophobic, intolerant, hateful, bigoted, etc..., but what they need to understand is that it doesn't matter how they frame their view. If it is not in absolute lock-step with same-sex marriage proponents as evidenced in this thread, you will be viewed as homophobic, intolerant, hateful, bigoted, etc...
Your opinion is duly noted, and not grounded in any factual matter. From where I sit, when gays get beaten or called names, or otherwise derided, it is indeed homophobic, intolerant, and bigoted, and there's a lot more of that going on than you're either willing to admit, or simply don't know about (in which case you should learn more).

The fact of the matter is that most are not able to equate sexual orientation with race and gender and most believe that a marriage between a mother and father at its level-best is the preferred condition. This is the condition they seek to protect.
And no one is attempting to take that away from any one. It's you who keeps bringing this up, as if it has something to do with gay marriage. No one is arguing that a stable family is not the preferred position; what I'm arguing is that not all families are stable (as you yourself have clearly pointed out), but that has nothing whatsoever to do with gays who want to marry and enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Why do you keep bringing this up? The answer is actually simple; you do view gay marriage as a threat, so you have to tie it in, however feebly, to the stability of the traditional family. Make up your mind; you can't have it both ways.

This is the condition they're willing to support with their tax dollars and their vote. When gays talk of being denied rights, they're not talking about the right not to be sold on an auction block, or vote, or own property, or sit and eat where they want, drink where they want, be employed, etc... They're generally talking about wanting to get married. IMO, they need to spend more time highlighting the actual constitutional rights they're being denied in some states such as the right to share property, estates, insurance, visitation should their loved one become ill, etc...
And in states where civil unions have been permitted, such as NJ, it has been shown that gays don't have all the same rights and privileges as married people. Again, make up your mind.


IMO this has more to do with how proponents have framed the debate. I think they marginalize the plights of blacks and women in this country by doing so.
Simply not true.


"Validity" in this sense was meant to address OldManMac's point that too many do not acknowledge the laws that had been drafted to provide equal protection for gays. My point was that there's little to suggest they'd acknowledge "marriage" and to dovetail off your point; I think you're correct when you say a victory would be more in principle than in practice.
All changes have to start with a first step.
( Last edited by OldManMac; Aug 12, 2010 at 09:07 PM. )
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 09:30 PM
 
almost all gays had straight parent...

/just saying
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
almost all gays had straight parent...

/just saying
Kids with Down's Syndrome have parents who didn't have Down's Syndrome.

Both my parents have blue eyes. Mine are hazel.

My sister is left handed but both my parents are right handed.

What's your point exactly?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 09:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
OK I'll highlight the right I'm being denied in EVERY state because of this issue. I fell in love with someone from another country who had to leave the US after a few years when his visa ran out. We went to lawyer after lawyer looking for any way we could stay together. They said if we were a straight couple we could get married and there'd be no problem but since we don't have equal rights in the United States our only option was to move to another country where they have already entered the 21st century. It took 18 months of separation and thousands of dollars not to mention having to leave my home and country which is supposed to be the best in the world but we now truly do have equality and a life together. This is probably just an 'argument' to you because you don't know us, but to me it's a life-changing experience that altered the way I think of people and my country and the world and the BS I was taught in civics class. And I can tell you that changing the law really DOES change people's minds and very fast. It's amazing how nobody here even blinks at two legally married men and this is the heart of the small-town midwest, not downtown Toronto or Vancouver. And anyway, why should Americans have to 'hightlight' and whine about each benefit and right we are being denied since we can't get married just because you're not comfortable giving us your "level-best" blessing as equal citizens? Thank God those days are almost over!
How do any of ebuddys arguments or proposals obstruct your plight? What he's been suggesting this entire time would solve every issue you just described to us. And guess what...WE SUPPORT YOU in that plight. Live and let live, ya know?

But if we're going to solve this issue together, then we need to address the root cause - not just throw even more federal laws at it. What is wrong with civil unions for everyone? For serious, whats the flaw with this plan and how does it prevent you from doing what you just told us you couldn't?
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What is wrong with civil unions for everyone?
As someone has already mentioned today, it's too late for that. It might have been a good plan ten years ago but now equal marriage is the law of the land (unless the supreme court overturns last weeks ruling).
And even if you could somehow change all the marriage laws in the country to civil union laws the hundreds of millions of married people including the gays that are married in 6 states wouldn't ever actually believe that they were no longer married, just unionized, and all future unions would be accompanied by religious or secular 'marriages' to make them 'real' so it would have no effect whatsoever. And besides, gays have been getting married for decades anyway, all they lacked was the legal union you're proposing. So the goal of keeping gays as second class citizens or whatever the goal of your proposed civil union statutes is would fail. Or didn't you know that gays have been getting married in churches all this time?
And the worst part of your proposal is that it actually would make it seem like gays had succeeded in 'destroying marriage' which is what has been the big fear steadily drummed into people's heads for the past 20 years. At this point it just sounds like you'd rather cut the baby in half than let someone else have it.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
So the goal of keeping gays as second class citizens or whatever the goal of your proposed civil union statutes is would fail. Or didn't you know that gays have been getting married in churches all this time?
The idea is to make everyone equal under the law. How does making it the same thing for everyone equate to keeping gays as "second class citizens?"

And the worst part of your proposal is that it actually would make it seem like gays had succeeded in 'destroying marriage' which is what has been the big fear steadily drummed into people's heads for the past 20 years. At this point it just sounds like you'd rather cut the baby in half than let someone else have it.
It sounds to me like instead of trying to accomplish a goal for civil rights, you're seeking retribution for being wronged by society.



"its too late for that". WTF is this? General Hospital? ebuddy was absolutely right.


Lets go over a checklist of your goals and whether or not ebuddy's proposal accomplishes that.

-equal protection under the law for everybody. Check.
-The ability to reap the benefits of said protection. Check.
-The ability to bring your loved one from across the pond. Check.
-the ability to live with your significant other and be classified the same exact way as heterosexuals under the law. Check.


Am I missing something?

As for "destroying marriage." Marriage is a religious thing. Last time I checked thats covered in the 1st amendment. It doesn't matter what the government tries to legislate - they never should have been able to marry people in the first place - thats for your church.

Can you give me a practical reason why this wouldn't work? I've heard the victim schpeel enough in this thread and I'm not buying anymore. Lets talk practically here. Why wouldn't this work?
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 11:04 PM
 
You don't think that re-writing the marriage laws of all 50 states and trying to convince all the married people that they're only unionized is a practical problem that wouldn't work? And what possible goal are you trying to achieve? Seriously.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
You don't think that re-writing the marriage laws of all 50 states and trying to convince all the married people that they're only unionized is a practical problem that wouldn't work?
You get married at the church - no one's going to give a crap. All it changes is language on a tax form.

And what possible goal are you trying to achieve? Seriously.
Originally Posted by Snow-i, 5 freakin minutes ago

equal protection under the law for everybody. Check.
-The ability to reap the benefits of said protection. Check.
-The ability to bring your loved one from across the pond. Check.
-the ability to live with your significant other and be classified the same exact way as heterosexuals under the law. Check.
Among other things.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 11:29 PM
 
Personally, I don't care what the law decides to call it. Call it 'human arc welding' if you like. There are a lot of legal concepts that have different 'official' legal terms and 'laymens' terms. Like OldManMac said, I'd guess most people would still say they're getting married anyway, whether or not there's some other ritual outside the legal union.

That said, the incessant demand to change the legal name does smack quite a bit of a strong desire to 'take one's ball and go home'.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:08 AM
 
Can we go back to arguing about whether brothers and sisters and dogs and cats can get married because that is seeming a lot more logical compared to thinking that the whole issue can be solved by changing the word and insisting that it's the exact same thing.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Personally, I don't care what the law decides to call it. Call it 'human arc welding' if you like. There are a lot of legal concepts that have different 'official' legal terms and 'laymens' terms. Like OldManMac said, I'd guess most people would still say they're getting married anyway, whether or not there's some other ritual outside the legal union.
Indeed - and this way the law doesn't provide a definition for which to bicker over.
That said, the incessant demand to change the legal name does smack quite a bit of a strong desire to 'take one's ball and go home'.
Its actually just an attempt to get everyone on the same page.

You have highly religious people that no matter how many sad stories you tell em will still fight to prevent homosexual "marriage" because of their beliefs. Call it civil unions and they don't have an argument.

You have highly predatory perverts who "marry" multiple girls at predatory ages under the guise of religion and under the 1st amendment, have that right.

You have religions that recognize polygamy - raising the question of whether it should be legally allowed under the 1st amendment's "freedom of religion"

You have athiests that want to marry fire hydrants - and they can claim its validity under the first amendment.


Now how can we solve all of these problems in one fell swoop without trashing the first amendment? Take the religious context out of the equation. Marriage means different things to different people - so lets let the people decide what religious marriage means to them. Lets have the legal analogue called something else entirely - so there's no more arguing. Change the freaking name. It doesn't seem that hard to understand.



And yes, when there's four or five kids about to get in a fist-fight over that stupid ball, you're damn right I'm taking it home. You can find whatever ball floats your boat at your own house, your own church, and on your own terms. Its none of my business and we need the law to recognize that by separating religion from law. And no, you can't take the religion out of the term "marriage."
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Can we go back to arguing about whether brothers and sisters and dogs and cats can get married because that is seeming a lot more logical compared to thinking that the whole issue can be solved by changing the word and insisting that it's the exact same thing.
Really? Where does the logic fail? You've yet to enlighten the rest of us as to why your victimization only has one solution.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Kids with Down's Syndrome have parents who didn't have Down's Syndrome.

Both my parents have blue eyes. Mine are hazel.

My sister is left handed but both my parents are right handed.

What's your point exactly?
Genetics. There have been several twin studies where a set of identical twins were split up, then grew up with a different set of parents. The study found that both children did not share characteristics of their adoptive parents, but of their biological parents.

Despite peoples' claims that homosexuality is a result of the environment and not genetic, and as a result is simply a choice, evidence (both sociological and genetic) suggest otherwise.

So to deny left handed people, hazel eyed people, or autistic people from getting married is, in principal, exactly the same as denying a gay couple from getting married.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
So to deny left handed people, hazel eyed people, or autistic people from getting married is, in principal, exactly the same as denying a gay couple from getting married.


Not really. You can't make kids with your left hand
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You have highly religious people that no matter how many sad stories you tell em will still fight to prevent homosexual "marriage" because of their beliefs. Call it civil unions and they don't have an argument.
But why not? It's the same thing, right?

You have highly predatory perverts who "marry" multiple girls at predatory ages under the guise of religion and under the 1st amendment, have that right.

You have religions that recognize polygamy - raising the question of whether it should be legally allowed under the 1st amendment's "freedom of religion"

You have athiests that want to marry fire hydrants - and they can claim its validity under the first amendment.
And in all cases, they'll want the same right. It's the same thing, right?

Now how can we solve all of these problems in one fell swoop without trashing the first amendment? Take the religious context out of the equation. Marriage means different things to different people - so lets let the people decide what religious marriage means to them. Lets have the legal analogue called something else entirely - so there's no more arguing. Change the freaking name. It doesn't seem that hard to understand.
Or, we could do it the other way. Keep the legal definition 'marriage', and call church ceremonies 'religious unions'. Everyone should be happy - the legal definition and religious definition are separate. Should be no big deal. It's the same thing, right?

And yes, when there's four or five kids about to get in a fist-fight over that stupid ball, you're damn right I'm taking it home. You can find whatever ball floats your boat at your own house, your own church, and on your own terms. Its none of my business and we need the law to recognize that by separating religion from law. And no, you can't take the religion out of the term "marriage."
Yep, so you've pretty much affirmed what I was thinking. Thanks.

Oh, and by the way - I agree with ebuddy's prediction - Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 in a 5-4 decision. Not saying that's what I want to see happen - just that it's what I think will occur.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Not really. You can't make kids with your left hand
If marriage is only about procreation, you've just precluded straight men and women unable to have children from getting married.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
But why not? It's the same thing, right?
Which context? Religious? Or legal? mrtew is complaining about his legal rights.


And in all cases, they'll want the same right. It's the same thing, right?
Now you're being intentionally difficult. Do you think you could argue in court that your freedom of religion was violated because you weren't able to civilly unionize a fire hydrant? No. But you could still marry it. In a church. On your own time. With your religion being wholly separate from the legal union.

Or, we could do it the other way. Keep the legal definition 'marriage', and call church ceremonies 'religious unions'. Everyone should be happy - the legal definition and religious definition are separate. Should be no big deal. It's the same thing, right?
If thats what you want to call it thats fine. You gotta get that one past the vast majority of the country though who subscribe to religion. The term marriage came from religion - so that probably won't fly. I don't care what we call it - but everyone needs to agree. I'm kind of partial to human arc welding myself.

Yep, so you've pretty much affirmed what I was thinking. Thanks.
Is this supposed to be an argument? Fail.


Oh, and by the way - I agree with ebuddy's prediction - Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 in a 5-4 decision. Not saying that's what I want to see happen - just that it's what I think will occur.
And yet you're still as unwilling to come up with a workable solution if its not in lock-step with your personal and highly subjective perspective. I thought you guys were supposed to be more open minded than us?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Indeed - and this way the law doesn't provide a definition for which to bicker over.

Its actually just an attempt to get everyone on the same page.
As long as that page is yours.

You have highly religious people that no matter how many sad stories you tell em will still fight to prevent homosexual "marriage" because of their beliefs. Call it civil unions and they don't have an argument.
You actually believe this, don't you?

You have highly predatory perverts who "marry" multiple girls at predatory ages under the guise of religion and under the 1st amendment, have that right.

You have religions that recognize polygamy - raising the question of whether it should be legally allowed under the 1st amendment's "freedom of religion"

You have athiests that want to marry fire hydrants - and they can claim its validity under the first amendment.
I was waiting for someone to trot out the absurd strawman.


Now how can we solve all of these problems in one fell swoop without trashing the first amendment? Take the religious context out of the equation. Marriage means different things to different people - so lets let the people decide what religious marriage means to them. Lets have the legal analogue called something else entirely - so there's no more arguing. Change the freaking name. It doesn't seem that hard to understand.
Do you really believe that just changing the name of a practice or institution is going to mollify the religious?



And yes, when there's four or five kids about to get in a fist-fight over that stupid ball, you're damn right I'm taking it home. You can find whatever ball floats your boat at your own house, your own church, and on your own terms.
The only problem with that analogy is that this is ball that's being fought for by millions of people.

Its none of my business...
That hasn't stopped others, who's business seems to be minding everyone's but their own.

and we need the law to recognize that by separating religion from law.
Good luck with that. You haven't heard about the Religious Right, (which, to use an old, but appropriate, phrase, is neither), have you?

And no, you can't take the religion out of the term "marriage."
Yet you're advocating we tell believers that we should call what they've known as marriage, something else.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
If marriage is only about procreation, you've just precluded straight men and women unable to have children from getting married.
Depends. Are they left handed?

It was a joke - i'm not trying to make that argument at this point.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Which context? Religious? Or legal? mrtew is complaining about his legal rights.
Does it matter? If it's the same thing, religious people are going to object to a legal civil union of homosexuals in the same way they'd object to a legal marriage of homosexuals.

So that's what I'm asking. Is it the same, or isn't it? Like I said, I'm fine with the compromise. I'm just trying to understand the source of the need for compromise.

Now you're being intentionally difficult. Do you think you could argue in court that your freedom of religion was violated because you weren't able to civilly unionize a fire hydrant? No. But you could still marry it. In a church. On your own time. With your religion being wholly separate from the legal union.
I'd think, again, if it's the same thing, then yes - it's the same argument to get a legal civil union license as it would be to get a legal marriage license. I can pretty much guarantee you that someone who wants to do that will find a way to argue it. As for what you do in your church, hey, whatever floats your boat, man. I ain't judging.

If thats what you want to call it thats fine. You gotta get that one past the vast majority of the country though who subscribe to religion. The term marriage came from religion - so that probably won't fly. I don't care what we call it - but everyone needs to agree. I'm kind of partial to human arc welding myself.
Is this supposed to be an argument? Fail.
No. I'm literally saying that you addressed my question. I'd agree it was a terrible 'argument'!

And yet you're still as unwilling to come up with a workable solution if its not in lock-step with your personal and highly subjective perspective. I thought you guys were supposed to be more open minded than us?
1. Who's 'you guys'?
2. I've already said I actually don't care. What it's called means absolutely nothing to me - it says nothing of the relationship between me and my wife. I'm just trying to understand where this is coming from. Will I have an opinion on the validity of that? Sure. But it has no impact on my willingness to compromise.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
As long as that page is yours.
Actually, i don't agree with homosexuality. At all. Frankly though, its none of my business. So if you wanted my own personal page you'd be getting a completely different argument. Unlike most on this forum, I'm able to separate logic from emotion and actually apply those thoughts.


You actually believe this, don't you?
Argument fail. Care to back up your assertion otherwise?


I was waiting for someone to trot out the absurd strawman.
It was actually hyperbole to illustrate a point which you've still not gotten. There's nothing strawman about it.


Do you really believe that just changing the name of a practice or institution is going to mollify the religious?
Not all. But enough.



The only problem with that analogy is that this is ball that's being fought for by millions of people.
That makes my analogy all the more applicable.


That hasn't stopped others, who's business seems to be minding everyone's but their own.
That includes "the victims" here too. Otherwise there'd be no objection to this solution.

Good luck with that. You haven't heard about the Religious Right, (which, to use an old, but appropriate, phrase, is neither), have you?
Relevance?

Yet you're advocating we tell believers that we should call what they've known as marriage, something else.
Do you even know what the process to get legally married is? You sign a piece of paper.

"Believers" hold no significance to the signing of the marriage license. They hold significance to the matrimonial ceremony. Are you even trying?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Actually, i don't agree with homosexuality. At all.
What's to agree or disagree with? Do you agree or disagree with tall people? What if they don't agree with you?
( Last edited by besson3c; Aug 13, 2010 at 01:24 AM. )
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 01:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Actually, i don't agree with homosexuality. At all.
Then don't practice it, which no one is asking you to do.


Frankly though, its none of my business.
That's a line that's always used by those who nonetheless make it their business. If it wasn't your business, you wouldn't be talking about it.

So if you wanted my own personal page you'd be getting a completely different argument. Unlike most on this forum, I'm able to separate logic from emotion and actually apply those thoughts.
You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? If you used logic, you'd see that it doesn't affect you, or the institution of marriage.



Argument fail. Care to back up your assertion otherwise?
Don't need to; you've proven it for me.


It was actually hyperbole to illustrate a point which you've still not gotten. There's nothing strawman about it.
Of course it's not a strawman, once it's pointed out you name it something else, like hyperbole.



That includes "the victims" here too. Otherwise there'd be no objection to this solution.
Another tired argument; painting those who don't agree with you as "victims," so you can feel superior to them.

Relevance?
It's called religion, which, whether you admit it, or like it, is what this is really all about.



Do you even know what the process to get legally married is? You sign a piece of paper.
I was married for 20 years; I'm quite familiar with the process.

[/quote]"Believers" hold no significance to the signing of the marriage license. They hold significance to the matrimonial ceremony. Are you even trying?[/QUOTE]

It isn't me who isn't trying. Saying that believers hold no significance to the marriage license is patently absurd. It's part of the process; at least it was for me. I wouldn't know about what you hold significant, but I'm pretty damn sure that every married couple I've know personally held a tremendous amount of significance to the entire process, including the license, which, in case you hadn't noticed, makes it all legal. That's pretty significant to most marriages, unless they're a sham to begin with.

I have to get up to work tomorrow; have a nice evening.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 02:01 AM
 
Everything ebuddy has said in against gay marriages has been said about interracial marriages in the past.

The state should decide whether to ban gay/interracial marriages
It's gross and unnatural.
It's bad for the children.
It's against God's will.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 06:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Really? Where does the logic fail? You've yet to enlighten the rest of us as to why your victimization only has one solution.
Since you don't want to read my post explaining that the logic of the civil union solution is fine but the timing is off and the practical problems with changing the word now are insurmountable, maybe an analogy will help you see the what I'm talking about.

Imagine that immediately AFTER women had won the right to vote, I posted here on some Mac internet forum that I have a better solution. Government should have never been holding votes at all. That's something that has been traditionally done in churches for example choosing a new pope etc and we should instead issue everyone straws regardless of whether they are men or women. Then we'll do what we'll call straw polls to determine issues. From now on actual voting with ballots will only be done in churches where it should have been done the whole time and only atheists and women will be left out and they're basically the devil anyway. Straw polls will basically be the same thing as what we've called voting for the last 2000 years but by a different name and when we rewrite all the laws and constitutions to reflect the new terminology we'll make sure to specify that no branch of government shall ever be able to force any religion to give women the right to vote because religion is sacred and above all scrutiny and if women don't like that they can go start their own churches where they can sit around and vote for eachother.

I'm sure you'll be tempted to start poking holes in my analogy and show where is doesn't line up perfectly with the equal marriage issue but just take it as an example of how you sound to the equal marriage advocates when you propose it. Gay people have just won acknowledgement of their right to marry and NOW you want to tell them that there's no such thing as marriage? That it's called a civil union and it's just a piece of paper that they sign at the clerks office handing over half their stuff to the dude they're humping? That actual marriage is done at real churches between real couples and that's something that they'll never understand and if they want to pretend they believe in God they can start a church and pretend to get married too and no one will be the wiser? That's how you sound.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 07:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
And what does this list have to do with gay marriage? Nothing. Are you suggesting gay marriage encourages these behaviors?
OMG!!! Please read what I was responding to.

Agreed, but this also has nothing to do with gay marriage.
UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... it had everything to do with what I was responding to.

Your opinion is duly noted, and not grounded in any factual matter. From where I sit, when gays get beaten or called names, or otherwise derided, it is indeed homophobic, intolerant, and bigoted, and there's a lot more of that going on than you're either willing to admit, or simply don't know about (in which case you should learn more).
What do you want from me? You want open-mindedness? Show some. You want tolerance? Show some. You want understanding? Give some. You want respect? Give it. You want an active listener? Be one. Right now based on the logic that if every word I say does not fall in absolute lock-step with what you say; you're acting heterophobic, intolerant, and bigoted and there's a lot of emotionally-charged arguments here that have absolutely nothing to do with what I've said and everything to do with you wanting to springboard from my post to another one of your rants. You want facts? Give some.

And no one is attempting to take that away from any one. It's you who keeps bringing this up, as if it has something to do with gay marriage. No one is arguing that a stable family is not the preferred position; what I'm arguing is that not all families are stable (as you yourself have clearly pointed out), but that has nothing whatsoever to do with gays who want to marry and enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Why do you keep bringing this up? The answer is actually simple; you do view gay marriage as a threat, so you have to tie it in, however feebly, to the stability of the traditional family. Make up your mind; you can't have it both ways.
I'm bringing this up in response to the person I was talking to. You're not paying attention to a word of it so you can say what you want. Say what you want, but quit hijacking my words to do it. You want so badly for me to be hateful so you can address that sentiment as opposed to a sober discussion of how best to achieve true equality in society. Yeah, as you've established; you can legislate the shit out of it and it's not going to matter.

And in states where civil unions have been permitted, such as NJ, it has been shown that gays don't have all the same rights and privileges as married people. Again, make up your mind.
Educate me. What rights are gays denied in NJ? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! WHAT RIGHTS ARE GAYS DENIED IN NJ? Pay close attention to the answer OldManMac gives MacNN, this will be exhibit A of intolerance.

All changes have to start with a first step.
Okay. Hopefully, your first step wasn't into a pile of mud.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Everything ebuddy has said in against gay marriages has been said about interracial marriages in the past.

The state should decide whether to ban gay/interracial marriages
It's gross and unnatural.
It's bad for the children.
It's against God's will.
Hindsight 20/20... ignore.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Aug 13, 2010 at 03:14 PM. )
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 07:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Congrats, a convert. I love God. I hate gays because they are disgusting, wretched, vile sexual deviants who not only deserve illegitimacy, but complete isolation from normal people. I don't want their gayness rubbing off on anyone else. I will dissolve all my friendships with homosexuals because I hate them. I will not hug them, I will not associate with them, and I will not support them. They are gay. From here forward, I only support marriage between one white man and one white woman with blue eyes, strong features, broad shoulders, and nice butts. Because I refuse to agree with every single word uttered by every single proponent of same-sex marriage, I hate them all.
Reported
Late edit: guess I should add "not srsly", whoa
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Aug 13, 2010 at 12:55 PM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Congrats, a convert. I love God. I hate gays because they are disgusting, wretched, vile sexual deviants who not only deserve illegitimacy, but complete isolation from normal people. I don't want their gayness rubbing off on anyone else. I will dissolve all my friendships with homosexuals because I hate them. I will not hug them, I will not associate with them, and I will not support them. They are gay.

And that my friends is exactly how every person against gay marriage feels, deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, whether they want to admit it to themselves it or not.

Thanks for being completely honest with yourself and everyone else eBuddy.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 09:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Genetics. There have been several twin studies where a set of identical twins were split up, then grew up with a different set of parents. The study found that both children did not share characteristics of their adoptive parents, but of their biological parents.

Despite peoples' claims that homosexuality is a result of the environment and not genetic, and as a result is simply a choice, evidence (both sociological and genetic) suggest otherwise.

So to deny left handed people, hazel eyed people, or autistic people from getting married is, in principal, exactly the same as denying a gay couple from getting married.
Duh. That was my point. I was responding to this post:

Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
almost all gays had straight parent...

/just saying
which implies that homosexuality is NOT genetic since "almost all gays had straight parents".

I was making the point that just because parents have a certain trait doesn't mean that the child will. That's how genetics works.

So I was asking ironknee exactly what his point was by saying that almost all "gays" had straight parents.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 09:10 AM
 
And now, my opinion of ebuddy as being one of the few politically rational people here has ended. He's opposed to gay marriage, and that's fine, but I've never seen him spout such disgusting, wretched, vile political rhetoric.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
And now, my opinion of ebuddy as being one of the few politically rational people here has ended. He's opposed to gay marriage, and that's fine, but I've never seen him spout such disgusting, wretched, vile political rhetoric.
Do you think he was being serious?
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Do you think he was being serious?
I don't think he meant to be serious, but he summarized how everyone opposed to gay marriage REALLY feels deep down. See my post above.

People can try to rationalize, politicize, and legitimize their opposition to gay marriage all they want (as eBuddy and others have tried to do in this thread). But when it comes right down to it, the bottom line is that people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to it because they are homophobic bigots who don't like homosexuals/homosexuality and are afraid of allowing homosexuals to marry, whether they want to admit it or not.

There have not been any other rationale, logical explanations for their opposition to gay marriage. It's all homophobia/fear disguised as political/religious arguments.

PERIOD. End of discussion.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Checks and balances typically refers to the representation on the HIll, not a Federal check against a State regarding matters for which it has no jurisdiction. Tyranny of the majority? Not any more than any other ballot initiative that doesn't involve a constitutional right. That's how voting works. The majority wins.
Apparently not. (Checks and balances refers to government in general. Executive, Legislative, Judiciary)

Referring to it as a ballot initiative also undersells the far-reaching nature of a constitutional amendment. If it is in conflict with previous laws and amendments then how else is it supposed to be resolved?

Any thoughts on my comment about amendments requiring supermajorities?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[*] The perceived "importance" of marriage in trying to legitimize an illegitimate relationship.
I'm not clear on what you mean by illegitimate relationships and am terrified to assume.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
  • The divorce rate
  • antiquated legislation around property, income distribution, and child visitation.
  • Clogging the judicial system with divorce
... to name a few. I think it's time we ask ourselves what exactly we're encouraging here.
Yep.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agree with all the above. Defending "marriage" is not something that can be done at the Federal level or even the State level for that matter. It starts with the family, upbringing, discernment, not making impulse decisions as if you're picking out a toothbrush, etc..., but these are all the difficulties around societal ills that people have a tendency to try mitigating with Federal legislation. Folks want to talk about the sanctity of marriage, but they've not been good stewards of their own. It's all just silly IMO.
I think we're mostly in agreement here. I just find most of the reasoning behind defending marriage to be disingenuous. I don't think it's about the marriages, but about the homosexuals.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That's because they tiptoe around the issue for fear of being called homophobic, intolerant, hateful, bigoted, etc..., but what they need to understand is that it doesn't matter how they frame their view. If it is not in absolute lock-step with same-sex marriage proponents as evidenced in this thread, you will be viewed as homophobic, intolerant, hateful, bigoted, etc...
Mostly agreed.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The fact of the matter is that most are not able to equate sexual orientation with race and gender and most believe that a marriage between a mother and father at its level-best is the preferred condition. This is the condition they seek to protect.
Disagree. Marriage stopped being about moms and dads roughly 50 years ago. That's what makes so much of the opposition illogical.

Second, if that logic was acceptable, beliefs as to it being best really isn't entirely a great justification – yes, the traditional family is the most ideal situation, but these other situations aren't exactly disastrous. From what I've read, a lesbian couple is better than a single parent, and aside from some nut-jobs, no one is outraged by the latter situation. (I'll do my best to dig up that study)


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is the condition they're willing to support with their tax dollars and their vote. When gays talk of being denied rights, they're not talking about the right not to be sold on an auction block, or vote, or own property, or sit and eat where they want, drink where they want, be employed, etc... They're generally talking about wanting to get married. IMO, they need to spend more time highlighting the actual constitutional rights they're being denied in some states such as the right to share property, estates, insurance, visitation should their loved one become ill, etc...
If one act (getting married ) solves all of that, why would they seek to pursue a more complicated route? And that's disregarding the generally held goal for most people of getting married at some point in their lives.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
IMO this has more to do with how proponents have framed the debate. I think they marginalize the plights of blacks and women in this country by doing so.
Like most metaphors it's inexact. However opponents who beat on that point are likely making a calculated departure from the real debate – why this shouldn't happen.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"Validity" in this sense was meant to address OldManMac's point that too many do not acknowledge the laws that had been drafted to provide equal protection for gays. My point was that there's little to suggest they'd acknowledge "marriage" and to dovetail off your point; I think you're correct when you say a victory would be more in principle than in practice.
Thanks.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What is wrong with civil unions for everyone? For serious, whats the flaw with this plan and how does it prevent you from doing what you just told us you couldn't?
Nothing – so long as gays are allowed to marry just like straights in the interim.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
And now, my opinion of ebuddy as being one of the few politically rational people here has ended. He's opposed to gay marriage, and that's fine, but I've never seen him spout such disgusting, wretched, vile political rhetoric.
Context. hyteckit, one of the more counterproductive posters here, took a meaningful discussion, threw it out the window and offered a rebuttal to an argument no one was making. In return, ebuddy spouted off a sarcastic rant to satisfy hyteckit's wet dream of the opposition.

If you wanna fault ebuddy, fault him for responding to the idiot at all.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
If you wanna fault ebuddy, fault him for responding to the idiot at all.
You're absolutely correct Dakar. I sometimes confuse the desire to post here with an obligation to post here and was absolutely beyond-myself frustrated.

I appreciate your ability to see the post for what it was. While clearly sarcastic, it lacked a great deal of discipline and frankly it has been bothering me all day. I would've thought after 7 years of posting here, offering personal testimonies of how my views on this issue have been shaped through the struggles I've witnessed among friends; most reasoned folks would've seen that post for what it was. Make no mistake, it was sarcasm cloaked in unbridled frustration.

I also appreciate the openness of whichever mods were alerted to that post for either knowing enough of me personally or of this thread specifically, to know what it was. I fully expected to be banned right now and the only thing I can surmise is that in spite of losing my temper, context was not lost on you. Thank you.

I sincerely regret the thought that someone new to this forum or God forbid, a homosexual who may or may not be struggling with stigma; would see those words and experience even a modicum of harm to their psyche. To you, I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

To the remainder who've essentially thrown every last one of those words in the face of anyone not in lock-step with their views, you'll have to check yourself and whatever collateral damage you might be doing. For whatever reason, you won't see yourself in the mirrors I hold up for you and it's not making sense for me to keep trying.

I'll get back to your other points later Dakar and thanks again. Thanks to Laminar, Rumor, et al.
ebuddy
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
I don't think he meant to be serious, but he summarized how everyone opposed to gay marriage REALLY feels deep down. See my post above.

People can try to rationalize, politicize, and legitimize their opposition to gay marriage all they want (as eBuddy and others have tried to do in this thread). But when it comes right down to it, the bottom line is that people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to it because they are homophobic bigots who don't like homosexuals/homosexuality and are afraid of allowing homosexuals to marry, whether they want to admit it or not.

There have not been any other rationale, logical explanations for their opposition to gay marriage. It's all homophobia/fear disguised as political/religious arguments.

PERIOD. End of discussion.
And you have evidence to prove this? It seems to be an awfully bold statement.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Context. hyteckit, one of the more counterproductive posters here, took a meaningful discussion, threw it out the window and offered a rebuttal to an argument no one was making. In return, ebuddy spouted off a sarcastic rant to satisfy hyteckit's wet dream of the opposition.

If you wanna fault ebuddy, fault him for responding to the idiot at all.
Stop the BS and blaming others for ebuddy's nonsense.

What's next? Blame gay marriages for ruining straight marriages.


Those were ebuddy's arguments I've listed.

Gender roles.
It's not genetic, but the environment that causes people to be gay.
States should decide, not federal government since gays don't deserve equal protection because they are not a protected class.


Same arguments against interracial marriages, just worded slightly different.

The state should decide whether to ban gay/interracial marriages
It's gross and unnatural.
It's bad for the children.
It's against God's will.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Stop the BS and blaming others for ebuddy's nonsense.

What's next? Blame gay marriages for ruining straight marriages.
Case in point. I didn't say the former, and the latter is an ad hominem.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:18 PM
 
Twin boys. One boy was turned into a girl due to a bad circumcision, and was raised as a girl.

Nature win out against nurture. Boy ended up wanted to be a boy despite not having a penis and being raised a girl.

Amazon.com: As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as A Girl (9780060192112): John Colapinto: Books
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Case in point. I didn't say the former, and the latter is an ad hominem.
Yes you did.

You said I'm to be blamed for ebuddy sprouting nonsense.


Maybe you blame black people for Dr. Laura's rant on the use of the N-word too?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_680680.html
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Yes you did.

You said I'm to be blame because ebuddy sprouting nonsense.
I said ebuddy was to blame because he knows better.

...and to my latter statement?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I said ebuddy was to blame because he knows better.

...and to my latter statement?
I know exactly what you are saying. Shift the blame onto others by saying one party is smarter and one party is the idiot.

What you are saying:

Don't fault Dr. Laura for using the N-word 20 times on her live radio show.

Fault Dr. Laura for responding to the idiot black folks for using the N-word.

She should've known better, because Dr. Laura is the smart one and the black folks are the idiots.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I know exactly what you are saying. Blame it on others.

What you are saying:

Don't fault Dr. Laura for using the N-word 20 times on her live radio show.

Fault Dr. Laura for responding to the idiot black folks for using the N-word.

She should've known better.
It's interesting how many of your arguments rely on your psychic abilities of knowing what people are really saying.

Since you're not responding to what I've actually said (or the full content of my posts), I think we're done here.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's interesting how many of your arguments rely on your psychic abilities of knowing what people are really saying.

Since you're not responding to what I've actually said (or the full content of my posts), I think we're done here.
It doesn't require psychic abilities.

Just because someone didn't explicitly express an opinion, doesn't mean it wasn't implied.


Ad Hominem? No.

Did I call ebuddy a homophobe or racist? No. Did I call you a homophobe or racist? No.


I was drawing an analogy or comparison.

Blaming me for ebuddy sprouting nonsense is like blaming gay marriages ruining straight marriages. It's shifting blame.

It's not an Ad Hominem; It's an analogy.



I know ebuddy has said he supported civil unions for gay couples many times in the past. I never said ebuddy hates gay people.

I just said his arguments against gay marriages are similar to the same arguments used against interracial marriages in the past.

ebuddy just overreacted and started sprouting nonsense.

But don't shift the blame on me for ebuddy overreacting and sprouting nonsense.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Aug 13, 2010 at 04:58 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
It doesn't require psychic abilities.
Neither does figuring out that you're an idiot.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Neither does figuring out that you're an idiot.
Perfect example of an Ad Hominem.

Don't have an argument. Resort to insults.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 05:14 PM
 
Doesn't mean it isn't true.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,