[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
yeah, that's why they decided to wed homosexuals...

Who is they? The ONE Judge we are talking about here?

Believe me I am sure it's not based on morals.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And you was wrong.

no, i wuz right!

Originally posted by Zimphire:

LOL I guess anything to try to make yourself look right huh?
...
Well if that is the point you were trying to get across, you surely did not with your poor comparisons.

nah, doesn't matter anyway. you were just digging at the wrong end. i could have used any number of examples...

Originally posted by Zimphire:

BTW your point is highly subjective too.

again you fail to produce any evidence. it's not subjective. nobody gets hurt. basta!

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Believe me I am sure it's not based on morals.

oh, yes, based on morals. just not YOUR MORALS!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
no, i wuz right!

If you still think your comparison was legit, you are deluded.

i could have used any number of examples...

With the improper way you just compared the two, I am sure you have SLEWS of comparisons.

again you fail to produce any evidence. it's not subjective. nobody gets hurt. basta!

Well considering since we have been ignoring morals our society hasn't been getting better now has it? No. It's getting worse.

Subjective. Like it or not. Admit it or not.

[lurkalot]

The two situations compared don't have to be 100% the same for the comparison to be valid. Anybody who makes a comment like that about the bus looks for easy identification with a similar human rights issue but must be fully aware that the situations are not identical. Was it ever implied that they were identical?

Why would a black man need to feel upset by the use of the image of segregation in a discussion of fundamental human rights and the pursuit of happiness?

Abrogating a person's right to choose an adult consenting partner for a long term relationship sanctified by the rules of that person's community is comparable to certain rights that were taken away from black people. Inter-racial marriage one of those. An other being denied a place to sit anywhere on the bus. Eventually they were allowed to ride. Eventually it may get them where they've wanted to go all along.

Same sex civil unions would be roughly equivalent to granting gay people a right to ride on the bus but not the right to pick any seat they want.

There was an interesting discussion about rights here the other day. I personally don't think "granted" is the correct word here. At the moment certain state laws abrogate rights these states have no right to abrogate. These fundamental rights are not theirs to grant. I can see why you would like the states to decide this. The record of the states on human rights issues isn't exactly stellar. A mere 35 states thought that gender equality was worth enshrining in the United States Constitution.

They are all symptoms of the decease of bigotry that persists in the U.S. because rights are still abrogated on arbitrary, irrational grounds. On characteristics shared by a variety of people who are otherwise as diverse as the rest of the people in their society. One is race or color an other is sexual orientation but even men and women are not fully recognized as equal under the laws of a nation that prides itself on its human rights record and on the freedom its model Constitution supposedly bestows on its citizens.

Once again we see that there isn't much of a domestic market for what are supposedly the main -and most costly- export products of the United States; Freedom and equality.

I did indeed mean the right of equality for all. Laws and particularly constitutions should leave no ambiguity about this fundamental right. Contrary to what you seem to believe the laws of the U.S. are not based solely on christian laws. There have been other influences and thankfully -in the case of gay marriage- the bible or religious laws have no bearing on the legality of the practice.

I am fully aware that recognizing legal rights is not the same as making all members of the community for which the laws apply see that equality is right and not merely a legal right. There will always be bigots whose stunted development stands in the way of such a progressive open minded society.

As long as these people are around gays and other minorities will always have more to fear from the other members of the society of which they are a part than the other way around. Gay marriage poses no threat to society as a whole or to rational individuals.

I personally have no problem with seeing those parts of society that feel a threat from something as harmless as gay marriage disappear. Not all change is progress but I never said it was. This change to legally recognize same sex marriages is progress however. If that change makes more people open to homosexual relationships that would be a nice benefit. But the right to marry for those who want that for their relationship will be a just reward regardless of broader influence. We will evolve. A bit utopian, certainly. As the word evolution implies progress is slow but we are on our way. The bus is moving. Departing another terminal along the way. You are just a speed bump.

I'm glad to see that you agree that gay marriage should not be banned entirely. What does a sentence like that mean though? When would you not ban gay marriage entirely -or partially?

There is nothing hypocritical about my treatment of you. I don't treat you this way because you are part of a larger group to which I assign certain characteristics on which basis I discriminate against all members of that group. Based on what you write on this forum I have developed a personal dislike of you because of the way you conduct yourself during discussions and because of the personal points of view you put forward. From what I've seen you write about the gay marriage topic you are indeed ridiculous and not rational in your objections. There is no rational argument against gay marriage.

Define discriminate before you come up with a bet like that. Based on the various meanings of the word in the dictionary I may very well agree that I discriminate, even daily. I think the context of the topic and the message I wrote made the meaning of the word I had in mind clear enough and based on that context I can say that my discrimination is certainly not a daily occurrence.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If you still think your comparison was legit, you are deluded.

if you still think it wasn't, you're missing the point.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

With the improper way you just compared the two, I am sure you have SLEWS of comparisons.

suuure. adolf hitler (thought what he did was right, while still doing things against the "law"), joseph mengele etc. the list could go on forever.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Well considering since we have been ignoring morals our society hasn't been getting better now has it? No. It's getting worse.

no, in this case things have gotten better. (and ,no, that is not "highly subjective" (and don't you dare start this stupid a$$ discussion again about what is "fact" and what is "subjective"), since nobody got hurt, and things have only gotten better, at least for some people).

i'll say it again, must be really sucky for the "moral majority" to suddenly not have a position of power to argue from, when "morals" become an individual thing, not dictated from above. looks like your ideology is going, going, going GONE! and from now on the ball is "clearly" on your side of the court. game. set. match.

[saranwarp]

Same sex civil unions would be roughly equivalent to granting gay people a right to ride on the bus but not the right to pick any seat they want.[/B]

Civil unions are the very definition of separate but equal. The only way you can support civil unions is if you feel there is something about the homosexual relationship that's not exactly worthy or deserving of the name "marriage." This scheme of creating a kind of parallel substance of marriage, and withholding the title, picks out a class of people in a demeaning way -- a strange course of action for people who supposedly support gay rights to take. If you're going to give all the rights, benefits and responsibilites of marriage to gays, then why not use the same word to describe their union?

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by saranwarp:
Civil unions are the very definition of separate but equal. The only way you can support civil unions is if you feel there is something about the homosexual relationship that's not exactly worthy or deserving of the name "marriage." This scheme of creating a kind of parallel substance of marriage, and withholding the title, picks out a class of people in a demeaning way -- a strange course of action for people who supposedly support gay rights to take. If you're going to give all the rights, benefits and responsibilites of marriage to gays, then why not use the same word to describe their union?

I agree. I support the complete equality of gay marriages and don't think gay couples who want this should have to settle for anything less than marriage. Marriage in church if they so desire.

Thank you for reinforcing one of the points I was making on this topic.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
if you still think it wasn't, you're missing the point.

No I got the point. You were trying to demean. It came out poorly.

suuure. adolf hitler (thought what he did was right, while still doing things against the "law"), joseph mengele etc. the list could go on forever.

AHahh The Hitler comparison. You know you just invoked Godwin's law. This thread in now over.

Good job.

Godwin's Law ___ prov. ___ [Usenet] "As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No I got the point. You were trying to demean. It came out poorly.

nope. obviously you didn't get the point, otherwise you wouldn't continue to argue here like some kind of idiot!

Originally posted by Zimphire:

AHahh The Hitler comparison. You know you just invoked Godwin's law. This thread in now over.

Good job.

Godwin's Law ___ prov. ___ [Usenet] "As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

nope, even here you are wrong. godwin's law only applies to people who don't have any knowledge about the history of the nazis and adolf hitler. that's why it got started in the first place. don't even try to come out here and say that that isn't true.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
nope. obviously you didn't get the point, otherwise you wouldn't continue to argue here like some kind of idiot!

LOL your ad-hominems are boring son.

What you are saying is "Unless you totally agree with my wrong comparison you are a idiot and that is that!"

"I know you are but what am I!"

Come on.. time to get out of Jr. High.

That too was a ad-hominem but it's getting tiring with all your verbal masturbation and teenage babble.

nope, even here you are wrong. godwin's law only applies to people who don't have any knowledge about the history of the nazis and adolf hitler. that's why it got started in the first place.

I just showed you the definition.

Please show me something that says otherwise. PLEASE. I want said definition and web page link.


NEVER in my 14 years of interweb discussion have I heard anyone try to justify or squirm out of their Godwin's law bust.

But then again, we all know you have a problem admitting you are wrong.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LOL your ad-hominems are boring son.

What you are saying is "Unless you totally agree with my wrong comparison you are a idiot and that is that!"

"I know you are but what am I!"

Come on.. time to get out of Jr. High.

That too was a ad-hominem but it's getting tiring with all your verbal masturbation and teenage babble.


I just showed you the definition.

Please show me something that says otherwise. PLEASE. I want said definition and web page link.


NEVER in my 14 years of interweb discussion have I heard anyone try to justify or squirm out of their Godwin's law bust.

But then again, we all know you have a problem admitting you are wrong. [/B]

Zimmy, methinks you doth protest too much.

Seriously Zimphire, are you gay, or entertaining gay thoughts? You've made the big transition to Christianity, is gayness your next gig?

You know the lord will forgive you, so what are you waiting for? Jump right in, the jacuzzi is hot and they're just gonna love your moustache.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LOL your ad-hominems are boring son.

pffff. i don't give a fu<k what you think. the comparison was "essentially" correct. i already pointed that out. somebody commiting a crime for personal beliefs (and no, it doesn't matter one fu<king bit whether dahmer or bundy at some point in time thought their behaviour was wrong) != civil disobedience. if you have a problem with the word "essentially", look it up.

again, essentially my statement is: "people who do things according to their conviction, IN SPITE OF breaking the law, aren't necessarily engaging in "civil disobedience". especially when others suffer from their actions," there ya go. now please stfu. i'm through with you.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
NEVER in my 14 years of interweb discussion have I heard anyone try to justify or squirm out of their Godwin's law bust.

that's because a lot of fascists like you enjoy using it, since it's your last ridiculous way out of a nazi comparison.

but it's true. that's how it started out. people making comparisons to nazis, who didn't have any knowledge about the history involved. it makes a lot of sense too when you think about it.

the problem is, whenever people compare the nazis to somebody, they do not understand what "essentially" (here is that word again) made them such a wretched group of people. here's a hint my little neonazi-con drone: it wasn't the lampshades, the ghettos, ww II oer even the KZs...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gadster:
Zimmy, methinks you doth protest too much.

Seriously Zimphire, are you gay, or entertaining gay thoughts? You've made the big transition to Christianity, is gayness your next gig?

You know the lord will forgive you, so what are you waiting for? Jump right in, the jacuzzi is hot and they're just gonna love your moustache.

I was waiting for the "If you are against homosexual sex you MUST be homosexual" defense mechanism to pop up.

It usually doesn't take this long. Strange.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
pffff. i don't give a **** what you think. the comparison was "essentially" correct. i already pointed that out. somebody commiting a crime for personal beliefs (and no, it doesn't matter one fu<king bit whether dahmer or bundy at some point in time thought their behaviour was wrong) != civil disobedience. if you have a problem with the word "essentially", look it up.

Naw I just have a problem with people that get busted and don't want to fess up. Thos who try to squirm and sneak through unscathed.

Say "Yeah your right, sorry" once in awhile. It will give you more credibility when you ARE actually right.

that's because a lot of fascists like you enjoy using it, since it's your last ridiculous way out of a nazi comparison.

How silly.

but it's true. that's how it started out. people making comparisons to nazis, who didn't have an idea what it was all about.

It was started because when a subject got heated, some moron always made a Hitler/Nazi comparison. Which usually got a thread or whatever locked or killed.

This ends Zimphire's lesson in Interweb history.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It was started because when a subject got heated, some moron always made a Hitler/Nazi comparison. Which usually got a thread or whatever locked or killed.

i think we are onto something here. again the "essence" escapes you. the thread didn't get locked because of the "hitler comparison". it got locked because people started talking about things that didn't know jack sh*t about, and because of that the thread usually turned into a flamefest and had to be killed.

as always, your world view and philosophy won't let you understand the underpinnings and essences of "how things actually work". that doesn't surprise me though.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was waiting for the "If you are against homosexual sex you MUST be homosexual" defense mechanism to pop up.

It usually doesn't take this long. Strange.

Look, here's the thing, Zimphire. I'm just finding it a bit odd that you are all over any thread with the ward 'gay' in the title�like a rash.

If it's a sin, isn't that what Christ died for? He doesn't need your help probably, I'm sure the Supreme Being can manage just fine on His own. Perhaps it's something that you and He can keep private between the two of you?

Just quietly, your interest in this topic borders on the obsessional. Hence my previous, provocative post. Just something you may want to look at?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
i think we are onto something here. again the "essence" escapes you. the thread didn't get locked because of the "hitler comparison". it got locked because people started talking about things that didn't know jack sh*t about, and because of that the thread usually turned into a flamefest and had to be killed.

Well you can believe that but no. It was the offensive Hitler comparisons. Esp ones that weren't justified. Like the one you made.

as always, your world view and philosophy won't let you understand the underpinnings and essences of "how things actually work". that doesn't surprise me though.

You can project all kinds of silliness onto phoenix. That wont make it true.

Give it up. It's not working for you.

It may work on some, but I've just been in here too long.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gadster:
Look, here's the thing, Zimphire. I'm just finding it a bit odd that you are all over any thread with the ward 'gay' in the title�like a rash.

You mean one that also talks about religious morons? Yeah surprising indeed.
Usually gay threads are one big Christian bash are they not?

If it's a sin, isn't that what Christ died for? He doesn't need your help probably, I'm sure the Supreme Being can manage just fine on His own. Perhaps it's something that you and He can keep private between the two of you?

Wait, do you think Jesus died for our sins so we can sin when we want regardless? Noo

Sinning is one thing. Trying to justify a sin as being ok, or normal is another.

If you sin, and recognize it as a sin, and ask for forgiveness and truly try to not do it again, then that is a different story.

Just quietly, your interest in this topic borders on the obsessional. Hence my previous, provocative post. Just something you may want to look at?

I am obsessed with spiritual matters indeed.

Everyone should.

Everything else is superficial.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well you can believe that but no. It was the offensive Hitler comparisons. Esp ones that weren't justified. Like the one you made.

nope. it was EXACTLY because a lot of them were "unjustified", since the people mentioning hitler didn't know anything about the nazis (and the history involved). my comparison, otoh, was right on the mark.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You can project all kinds of silliness onto phoenix.

grasping for the last straw there, are ya dim?

don't be so bitter. it'll soon be over, and your little friend jeeebus will be coming to pick you up...

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You mean one that also talks about religious morons? Yeah surprising indeed.
Usually gay threads are one big Christian bash are they not?
[/b]
Wait, do you think Jesus died for our sins so we can sin when we want regardless? Noo

Sinning is one thing. Trying to justify a sin as being ok, or normal is another.

If you sin, and recognize it as a sin, and ask for forgiveness and truly try to not do it again, then that is a different story.

I am obsessed with spiritual matters indeed.

Everyone should.

Everything else is superficial. [/B]

Your reply style is not conducive to meaningful debate. If you want to talk, please post your comments in manner that is possible to reply to.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Your reply style is not conducive to meaningful debate. If you want to talk, please post your comments in manner that is possible to reply to.

the ignore list is your friend.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the ignore list is your friend.

Ignore the Zimp? Where's the fun in that?

[Shaddim]

which is why we should completely disolve the institution of "marriage" within society and name a union between two adults as a "civil union", as viewed by the Gov't. People can still get "married", but it doesn't have any legal context, just religious/spiritual.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
nope. it was EXACTLY because a lot of them were "unjustified", since the people mentioning hitler didn't know anything about the nazis (and the history involved). my comparison, otoh, was right on the mark.

Your selective view on the history of it's usage is amusing to say the least.

It must suck to be wrong, and not know it.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
<snip>It must suck to be wrong, and not know it.

Maybe you could enlighten us?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gadster:
Maybe you could enlighten us?

Good one

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Your selective view on the history of it's usage is amusing to say the least.

It must suck to be wrong, and not know it.

pffffff. rofl. straw getting shorter and shorter, isn't it. what really sucks, is if you've got such an outdated and flawed perspective on things, that you can't even understand the simplest cause and effect relationships. ain't that so, dim?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
pffffff. rofl. straw getting shorter and shorter, isn't it. what really sucks, is if you've got such an outdated and flawed perspective on things, that you can't even understand the simplest cause and effect relationships. ain't that so, dim?

Lots of hot air but no substance.

Maybe next time you can find a nice median between the two.

[gadster]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
pffffff. rofl. straw getting shorter and shorter, isn't it. what really sucks, is if you've got such an outdated and flawed perspective on things, that you can't even understand the simplest cause and effect relationships. ain't that so, dim?

Hey phoenixboy, I can save you some grief here. Don't be concerned, you will never rattle the zimph. Let him be. There is no straw. No straw. As for cause and effect, way beyond his comprehension. Don't even bother. Seriously.

He'll probably dob me in for this. The bugger.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lots of hot air but no substance.

Maybe next time you can find a nice median between the two.

why, - you wouldn't notice substance if it hit you straight between the eyes on bright and sunny day, and as for the hot air, that's probably your (imaginary) boyfriend blowing smoke up your a$$!!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gadster:
Hey phoenixboy, I can save you some grief here. Don't be concerned, you will never rattle the zimph. Let him be. There is no straw. No straw.

No dobbing. You speak the truth.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
why, - you wouldn't notice substance if it hit you straight between the eyes on bright and sunny day, and as for the hot air, that's probably your (imaginary) boyfriend blowing smoke up your a$$!!

this is wrong on so many levels:

1. Its a personal attack
2. It will only encourage even MORE zimph posts than we are already suffering.
3. You cannot change the course of a mighty river. Zimphire is solid in his beliefs, even if we disagree with them, he will not be dislodged, so the effort is futile.

don't make me have to put you on ignore also.

[Zimphire]

Changing a belief you know to be right is kinda silly.

[Spliffdaddy]

Liberals are so hypocritical.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You cannot change the course of a mighty river.

mighty river usually run deep. the one you call "zimphire" as shallow as a puddle on a hot summer day. *hug* i have spoken.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Liberals are so hypocritical.

Not to mention dishonest.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
mighty river usually run deep. the one you call "zimphire" as shallow as a puddle on a hot summer day. *hug* i have spoken.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not to mention dishonest.

oh, i was being quite honest. i promise.

[Zimphire]

Oh I am sure you think you was.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I am sure you think you was.

oh, i know i be.

[Nonsuch]

Pardon me .. am I the only one who noticed that complete, utter, piledriving smackdown delivered by lurkalot above? I mean, I expected Zimmy to ignore it, but the rest of you?

Kudos, my man.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Pardon me .. am I the only one who noticed that complete, utter, piledriving smackdown delivered by lurkalot above? I mean, I expected Zimmy to ignore it, but the rest of you?

Kudos, my man.

For it to have been a smackdown, we would all have to share similar morals or lack of with such ideals.

Since that isn't so..

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
For it to have been a smackdown, we would all have to share similar morals or lack of with such ideals.

I have an MA in English, and I have no idea what that means.

[Zimphire]

Meaning for it to have been a smackdown, I would have to have similar beliefs as him. Since I don't it wasn't.

[Nonsuch]

Meaning it would only be a smackdown if he already agreed with you? That explains a lot about your style of argument.

It's a smackdown because it neatly dispenses with all your efforts at misdirection�your fretting about the "back of the bus" metaphor, your attempt to cast yourself as the victim of some kind of bias and thus expose your opponents as "hypocrites," etc.�and lays the issue bare in simple, reasonable terms. I think this phrase sums it up best:

As long as these people are around[,] gays and other minorities will always have more to fear from the other members of the society of which they are a part than the other way around. Gay marriage poses no threat to society as a whole or to rational individuals.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Meaning it would only be a smackdown if he already agreed with you? That explains a lot about your style of argument.

Actually, that is consistent with the other awarders of "smackdowns"...

[gadster]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
mighty river usually run deep. the one you call "zimphire" as shallow as a puddle on a hot summer day. *hug* i have spoken.

He's not so much a puddle, more a swamp.

[lurkalot]

Thank you, Nonsuch, I'm glad to see that I was able to articulate my point in a way that other posters here understood and appreciated. After the first reply about civil unions, posted by Saranwarp, I wasn't entirely sure if the points I tried to make had come across as I intended.

Zimphire, Since I doubt either one of us two is going to change our position it is enough for me that both our opinions now stand here in print. I guess that's all tolerance has to offer in this situation...? It is safe to say that we are on virtual polar opposites where personal beliefs are concerned.

I am still curious under what circumstances you wouldn't want to ban gay marriage and how you would like to see the states address that issue?

You wrote in a message on page one:
" I do? Nonsense. Did I ever once say we should ban gay marriages entirely? No I never. Thanks for assuming though. I think the states should have say, and the Gov stay out of it."

If you decide to address this question maybe we can focus on gay marriage specifically because in spite of the messages I wrote earlier I do agree that analogies can only be taken so far. There are people on the same bus who are treated as inferior by some people but I agree that there are several obvious and important differences between the way people of different skin color have been -sometimes still are- treated and the treatment homosexuals receive in many places.

The same thing goes for slippery slope arguments. There is only so much relevance these have for the specific topic. It must be possible to talk about same sex marriages -and the related law proposals and legal aspects- on their own merits and demerits. Demerits would be your department because I still don't see any rational ones.

In my opinion this can be done without giving the appearance that this is asking for preferential treatment for homosexuals or their lifestyle as you seemed to imply in one of your earlier messages when you wrote:
"And as far as recognition goes. That isn't granted. No one is allowed to force the Government to accept their lifestyles as being ok�."

If there is even such a thing as a homosexual life style, lived and shared by all or even most homosexuals. The gay "community" seems like a pretty diverse and only loosely organized group of people on closer inspection to me and except for certain shared sexual preferences there seem to be a variety of chosen lifestyles -from the mundane to the extravagant- among the gay couples seeking recognition for their long term commitment to their personal relationship.
No different than heterosexual couples who want to get married in that respect, I would say.
I think that the issue is about equal treatment and not about preferential treatment

For context. The "Zimphire" quotes came from this message on page one of the thread.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
There is only so much relevance these have for the specific topic. It must be possible to talk about same sex marriages -and the related law proposals and legal aspects- on their own merits and demerits. Demerits would be your department because I still don't see any rational ones.

that's because there aren't any!