Marriage Equality

[daddy1gringo]

BBS, what drugs are you taking? Your reply has nothing to do with what either I or the article author said.

You are so desperately afraid to deal with real arguments that you cling to jabbing at your little strawman, and when nobody argues from your precious little strawman, you block your ears and scream, "No! No! you're using that stawman! Yes you are! Don't deny it!" I used to think you were intelligent and reasonable but you keep disappointing me.

[AndyDufresne]

Solid argument here:

The chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party argued over the weekend that legalizing same-sex marriage would create new opportunities for swindling the U.S. government.

“You may be as straight as an arrow,” Sue Everhart told the Marietta Daily Journal, “and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal.”

--Andy

[Frigidus]

Solid argument here:

The chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party argued over the weekend that legalizing same-sex marriage would create new opportunities for swindling the U.S. government.

“You may be as straight as an arrow,” Sue Everhart told the Marietta Daily Journal, “and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal.”

--Andy

Wow, that's a good point. I'm sure that that has never been done before using the current system. And wow, what a terrible thing that would be, somebody getting good health insurance.

[2dimes]

And wow, what a terrible thing that would be, somebody getting good health insurance.

Wait, what, just a minute. You don't live in Canada before 1979 so no free high (for the time) quality socialized health care for you.

[jonesthecurl]

Uh, excuse me sir, that is the WORST comparison I have ever heard. Anybody you ask anywhere will joke that men and women are more than differnet races; they are from different planets. Our reactions, feelings, and functions in a family are totally opposite in most cases. This is not about equality of men and women it is simply saying that while EQUAL, the different genders perform different roles and no matter your sexual orientation you are still the gender you were born and you brain still functions as such. Your kind of relationships with you children is, partially, dictated by your gender, which anybody who takes their head out of their butt for more than 4 seconds can see, and children need both relationships.

So: Ban divorce. Ban single parents. Oh, and ban one parent dying.
And of course, there are no bad parents in "normal" marriages, all parents do a good job.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, what drugs are you taking? Your reply has nothing to do with what either I or the article author said.

You are so desperately afraid to deal with real arguments that you cling to jabbing at your little strawman, and when nobody argues from your precious little strawman, you block your ears and scream, "No! No! you're using that stawman! Yes you are! Don't deny it!" I used to think you were intelligent and reasonable but you keep disappointing me.

Apparently, you disagree without much explanation but with a very nice straw man!

I'm afraid I'm not too good at criticizing bigots, but bigots will be bigots, so I'm not too concerned.

[CBlake]

Uh, excuse me sir, that is the WORST comparison I have ever heard. Anybody you ask anywhere will joke that men and women are more than differnet races; they are from different planets. Our reactions, feelings, and functions in a family are totally opposite in most cases. This is not about equality of men and women it is simply saying that while EQUAL, the different genders perform different roles and no matter your sexual orientation you are still the gender you were born and you brain still functions as such. Your kind of relationships with you children is, partially, dictated by your gender, which anybody who takes their head out of their butt for more than 4 seconds can see, and children need both relationships.

This sounds like part a Seinfeld routine from the 80s (and I love Seinfeld )

"Seems to me the basic conflict between men and women, sexually, is that men are like firemen. To men, sex is an emergency, and no matter what we're doing we can be ready in two minutes. Women, on the other hand, are like fire. They're very exciting, but the conditions have to be exactly right for it to occur."

"Men want the same thing from their underwear that they want from women: a little bit of support, and a little bit of freedom. "

"There's very little advice in men's magazines, because men don't think there's a lot they don't know. Women do. Women want to learn. Men think, 'I know what I'm doing, just show me somebody naked.' "


--Andy

ANDY I LOVE SEINFELD TOO OMG! NO SOUP 4 U, HAHALOL GET IT? THE SOUP NAZI GUY? HAHALOL

[saxitoxin]

Solid argument here:

The chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party argued over the weekend that legalizing same-sex marriage would create new opportunities for swindling the U.S. government.

“You may be as straight as an arrow,” Sue Everhart told the Marietta Daily Journal, “and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal.”

--Andy

Without making a statement for- or against gay marriage, I actually knew a girl who registered with her female roommate as domestic partners (of course that's a lower barrier to entry than marriage) so they'd be eligible for a rent controlled apartment in NYC. And they both lovvvved dick.

(If wonder if AoG and Metsfanmax will pursue a similar strategy? They're in pretty much the same situation.*)


* Both loving dick I mean. I don't know if they live in the city or not.

[Funkyterrance]

Lol, you're bad.

[2dimes]

Dick who?

[rdsrds2120]

Dick who?

Clark. Why, who's asking?

BMO

[Symmetry]

Uh, excuse me sir, that is the WORST comparison I have ever heard. Anybody you ask anywhere will joke that men and women are more than differnet races; they are from different planets. Our reactions, feelings, and functions in a family are totally opposite in most cases. This is not about equality of men and women it is simply saying that while EQUAL, the different genders perform different roles and no matter your sexual orientation you are still the gender you were born and you brain still functions as such. Your kind of relationships with you children is, partially, dictated by your gender, which anybody who takes their head out of their butt for more than 4 seconds can see, and children need both relationships.

[2dimes]

Clark. Why, who's asking?

BMO

It's me dimes.

[rdsrds2120]

Clark. Why, who's asking?

BMO

It's me dimes.

Who's, "medimes?"

BMO

[TeeGee]

Clark. Why, who's asking?

BMO

It's me dimes.

Who's, "medimes?"

BMO

or what is/are medimes?


medimes - no dictionary results
No results found for medimes:
Did you mean mediums
mdmes
medium's
Medes
mediums'
Memes
Mimes
mdms
Mediates
modems
Medias

[2dimes]

Here it is. ,

[rdsrds2120]

Here it is. ,

Only now, do I see.

BMO

[Phatscotty]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

Race and gender are not the same thing. They are separate things.

That argument is about as valid as "Instead of same sex, insert ""pedophile""......

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

Race and gender are not the same thing. They are separate things.

That argument is about as valid as "Instead of same sex, insert ""pedophile""......

Ask Sym about making comparisons and how that all works.

[Phatscotty]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

Race and gender are not the same thing. They are separate things.

That argument is about as valid as "Instead of same sex, insert ""pedophile""......

Ask Sym about making comparisons and how that all works.

no thanks! I'm done with him, as he as already turned his Thomas Jefferson thread into a Phatscotty thread and the basic facts of the situation cannot even be allowed for discussion.

I understand why people try to make this analogy, but it doesn't work for one important reason. Even when there was a fuss in a few states about interracial marriage, it was still about marriage concerning one male and one female. Nobody was trying to redefine marriage based on gender, and interracial marriages have existed all over the world for thousands of years.

Marriage was not the issue, racism was, and it was a problem in many areas, not just marriage.

[Symmetry]

I spoke only of your appalling troll arguments, designed only to hurt with false statements.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

Race and gender are not the same thing. They are separate things.

That argument is about as valid as "Instead of same sex, insert ""pedophile""......

Ask Sym about making comparisons and how that all works.

no thanks! I'm done with him, as he as already turned his Thomas Jefferson thread into a Phatscotty thread and the basic facts of the situation cannot even be allowed for discussion.

I understand why people try to make this analogy, but it doesn't work for one important reason. Even when there was a fuss in a few states about interracial marriage, it was still about marriage concerning one male and one female. Nobody was trying to redefine marriage based on gender, and interracial marriages have existed all over the world for thousands of years.

Marriage was not the issue, racism was, and it was a problem in many areas, not just marriage.

I use the analogy to see if and how someone's position makes sense. It helps me to find common arguments--while exposing unique arguments against gay marriage.

Whichever arguments are similar, I discard both--if one has been already refuted (which is why analogies are useful). If dissimilar, then I let the opposition explain. Daddy1gringo refused, so he's left with the reductio ad absurdum until he can muster a good argument against gay marriage.

[daddy1gringo]

Whichever arguments are similar, I discard both--if one has been already refuted (which is why analogies are useful). If dissimilar, then I let the opposition explain. Daddy1gringo refused, so he's left with the reductio ad absurdum until he can muster a good argument against gay marriage.

What a joke. I clearly took up your challenge, made the substitution as you requested, showing clearly how the substitution didn't work. It's not my fault that you continued to hold your hand over your eyes and declare exactly the opposite of what was clearly there. The statements, with the substitution, made absolutely no sense. Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

EDIT:Here it is again.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

Let's test that:

Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With {two dads} < {two races} in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of {both genders} < {one race}. {Genderless} < {interracial} marriages deny this fullness.

Uh, nah.

Let's try another:

There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids {two moms or two dads} < {interracial} is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy.

Uh, nah again.

OK, lets try again:

{Two men or two women together} < {interracial marriage} is, in truth, nothing like a {man and a woman creating a life and a family together} < {same race}. {Same-sex} < {interracial} relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Uh, nah X3

... children are being engineered for {gay and lesbian} < {interracial} couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

To quote player###, "not even close." so for icing on the cake, try what he says next:

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

It boggles the mind to even think of how you could make the substitution here. In other words, BBS, you're fullofit.

[BigBallinStalin]

Whichever arguments are similar, I discard both--if one has been already refuted (which is why analogies are useful). If dissimilar, then I let the opposition explain. Daddy1gringo refused, so he's left with the reductio ad absurdum until he can muster a good argument against gay marriage.

What a joke. I clearly took up your challenge, made the substitution as you requested, showing clearly how the substitution didn't work. It's not my fault that you continued to hold your hand over your eyes and declare exactly the opposite of what was clearly there. The statements, with the substitution, made absolutely no sense. Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

EDIT:Here it is again.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

Let's test that:

Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With {two dads} < {two races} in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of {both genders} < {one race}. {Genderless} < {interracial} marriages deny this fullness.

Uh, nah.

Let's try another:

There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids {two moms or two dads} < {interracial} is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy.

Uh, nah again.

OK, lets try again:

{Two men or two women together} < {interracial marriage} is, in truth, nothing like a {man and a woman creating a life and a family together} < {same race}. {Same-sex} < {interracial} relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Uh, nah X3

... children are being engineered for {gay and lesbian} < {interracial} couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

To quote player###, "not even close." so for icing on the cake, try what he says next:

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

It boggles the mind to even think of how you could make the substitution here. In other words, BBS, you're fullofit.

That's great, but you failed to separate the common from the uncommon, which was the point of my previous post--which obviously you ignored while pounding your drum. If you don't read what I'm writing, then I'm not going to take you seriously.

Have fun supporting bigots. It really doesn't matter if the author was gay. Even slaves can enforce their master's wishes over other slaves; their position of slave still doesn't justify their actions.

[Woodruff]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

Race and gender are not the same thing. They are separate things.

That argument is about as valid as "Instead of same sex, insert ""pedophile""......

Ask Sym about making comparisons and how that all works.

no thanks! I'm done with him, as he as already turned his Thomas Jefferson thread into a Phatscotty thread and the basic facts of the situation cannot even be allowed for discussion.

I understand why people try to make this analogy, but it doesn't work for one important reason. Even when there was a fuss in a few states about interracial marriage, it was still about marriage concerning one male and one female. Nobody was trying to redefine marriage based on gender, and interracial marriages have existed all over the world for thousands of years.

Marriage was not the issue, racism was, and it was a problem in many areas, not just marriage.

It's amazing to me some people who claim to be for "small government" don't find it odd to try to squeeze the government into our bedrooms.

For you to be consistent, Phatscotty, you would have to completely stop being against Marriage Equality. Instead, you should SOLELY arguing in favor of getting the government out of marriage entirely (tax breaks, legalities, etc...). I know you have put forward that position, but in order to be consistent, that would have to be your ONLY position, not this "against Marriage Equality" bullshit that goes entirely against your claims of being in favor of "small government".